This is the man Bush thumbed his nose at in the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush was wrong then, and Blix was right. We should listen to him now.

it would be nice to know what N. Korea was offered and what was offered to Iran. hard to hear through all the MSM noise about Iran.

Rotund? Explain the relevance.

What gives Mr. Blix and the West the right to judge Iran and it's nuclear ambitions?!

It's okay for the west (USA specifically) to have and have used nuclear weapons (the only country to have used them, never the less on civilians), in hands of a madman (GW Bush) who has killed 10,000s of thousands of innocent people because supposedly they had nukes (or working towards them, Iraq)?!!

But, its not okay for Iran (who has NOT started a war for hundreds of years, unless it was to protect itself from being invaded: IE, the Iraq/Iran war fueled by the west and the great USA) to have nuclear technology or even nuclear weapons!?! While its a country with oil that is surrounded by countries with no oil and nuclear weapons. That have been warring with their neighbors ever since their inception (Pakistan and Israel).

If Mr. Blix was any kind of "GO TO GUY", he would be criticizing a country like Israel who HAS nuclear weapons (thanks to the Brits and the Americans for helping them to acquire them) AND is invading and killing their neighbors, not merely spouting off rhetoric, like the naive Iranian president, whom has NO power in state matters what's so ever!

The hypocrisy of the west is down right disgusting. What's this world coming to!?!

Actions speak louder than words.

Blah, blah,blah..... This is ridiculous, I think anybody with common sense knows that we are not going to allow the Iranians to build nukes. Aside from the appeasing commies at the NYT and WP most Americans are all for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Count me as one of them.

Think about it. In about 2045 the world will be almost out of oil. A country like Dubai is building man made islands and trying to convert it's country from an oil producer to a place where people will live and vacation to. Iran will be out of oil, so they simply want to be able to have another source of energy for their people.

What if someone told the US THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?. Who determines what country has the right to have these weapons? Should we tell India and Pakistan no more nukes? The fact of the matter is we do not want any middle eastern country to have them because it makes the power balance more even. Prediction - before the end of the Bush term we will have Invaded Iran. With Iraq under US control and Iran they will have effectivly put a US controled power base in the middle east A further way to force feed an American vision of democracy down a muslims thoart.

Think about it. In about 2045 the world will be almost out of oil. A country like Dubai is building man made islands and trying to convert it's country from an oil producer to a place where people will live and vacation to. Iran will be out of oil, so they simply want to be able to have another source of energy for their people.

What if someone told the US THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?. Who determines what country has the right to have these weapons? Should we tell India and Pakistan no more nukes? The fact of the matter is we do not want any middle eastern country to have them because it makes the power balance more even. Prediction - before the end of the Bush term we will have Invaded Iran. With Iraq under US control and Iran they will have effectivly put a US controled power base in the middle east A further way to force feed an American vision of democracy down a muslims thoart.

"Blah, blah,blah..... This is ridiculous, I think anybody with common sense knows that we are not going to allow the Iranians to build nukes"

What's rdiculous "Jackson" (since you didn't give a name, I'll give you one you depict best) is your ego centric posturing. You must be one of the ones that likes to gamble with other peoples lives Jackson. Because I know you're gonna be hiding behind those poor unfortunate US soldiers that have to pay the price of your ego with their lives.

What makes you think it's up to the US to let anyone do anything!?! If it was that easy don't you think the US would've "done" something about it by now?!

This is the problem with the American public, they are ill-informed and "full of bologna"! :)

Iran will have nuclear technology and all the "hot air & rhetoric" is not going to stop them.

Get used to it!

"Blah, blah,blah..... This is ridiculous, I think anybody with common sense knows that we are not going to allow the Iranians to build nukes"

Just like you didn't "allow" for N.Korea to build nukes?!

Live is reality.

The Iranians signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so THEY decided they shouldn't have nukes. If they wish to withdraw from the Treaty, there is a process - I think 6 months - and they can do so. The Israelis, BTW never signed in the first place.

Hey butchie b, guess what - the US also signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so YOU ALSO decided that YOU shouldn't have nukes.

Any plans to live up to YOUR promises at some future date? No?

I've asked several times around here if and when the US is going to observe its NPT committments. Strangely enough, no American patriot has ever bothered answering me.

John Doe
FYI, it's the french who build the first nuclear reactor in Israel. The israelis then used it to make their first atomic bombs...

No-name: "Aside from the appeasing commies at the NYT and WP most Americans are all for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Count me as one of them."

And you were all for attacking Iraq too. That worked out well, didn't it? You stopped Saddam's WMD war machine just in time.

All you're proving is that some people never learn.

Stone: "Prediction - before the end of the Bush term we will have Invaded Iran. With Iraq under US control and Iran they will have effectivly put a US controled power base in the middle east."

That assumes the US is actually capable of invading and controlling Iran, which it's not. The US Armed Forces are already at full stretch trying to hold down a country one-third of Iran's size. Invasion is not on the cards.

Jerry, both the French (in the past) and the Americans (more recently) have helped Israel develop nuclear weapons.
In fact the Americans are still at it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html

While I have great respect for Mr. Blix, This is a common sense political issue that does not require his technical expertice.
Even if Iran had Nuclear weapons, I find it highly unlikely that they would use them against Israel, and, even less likely against the U.S. or Europe. Chirac can relax. Nuclear weapons, unlike conventional weapons, are weapons of "uncontrolled" mass destruction. Any attack on Israel would takeout the Palestinians, as well, as part, if not all of the neighboring Arab countries. Iran supports the Palestinians and would not like to kill them. An attack by Israel on Iran, even against their nuclear power plants would create several Chernobyls. Millions would die, and the radioactive fallout would eventually effect Israel. The wind always changes direction.
I think this is a false isssue used to bring pressure against Iran for it's support of the Palestinians. Just about everybody in the Islamic world supports the Palestinians, and the only way that general support will stop is when there is a peace treaty between Israel and a free, independent, Palestinian state. There are, of course, border issues with Lebanon and Syria, but the main issue is an independent Palestine.
That support takes the form of military, economic, and humanitarian aid. The military aid now comes mainly from Syria and Iran. The economic and humanitarian aid from various countries and charities.
I don't think the U.S. or Israel will be able to bully Iran, Syria, or any Islamic Country into withdrawing their support for the Palestinians.
The more the unified West is seen as bullying the Middle East, the more terrorists will be created. Peace and a political settlement are the only anwsers.
I would add that you doen't want to play around with Hamas. They haven't targeted Americans yet. It is in America's national interest to go after al-Qaida and no other nationalist "terrorist" or "Resistance" organization. Most Americans have no interest in the Middle East as a colony.

Iran has not upheld there obligations to the NPT. They are blocking inspections, breaking seals and literally shouting for the death of Israel.

And they should have nuclear tech?

I think not.

P. J. Casey,

"I think this is a false isssue used to bring pressure against Iran for it's support of the Palestinians."

I couldn't have said it better myself, P. J. Casey. Thank you for that articulate post.

It is high time for the US to live up to its super power status in the world and stop letting it's allies (Israel) and AIPAC (Israeli lobby group that runs both the House and the Senate, not to mention "full control" of both the Democratic party as well as the Republican party politicians) form our foreign policy.

We have a responsibility in this world to lead "by example". Maybe then we'll get back what we've lost in this world, our respect and dignity.

USA #1

"John Doe's" macho posturing is hilarious and pathetic. The US has lost a lot of leverage vis a vis Iran, with its new found power in Iraq and its oil that we so desperately need, nevermind the abovementioned fact of the overstretched US armed forces.

KP,

""John Doe's" macho posturing is hilarious and pathetic. The US has lost a lot of leverage vis a vis Iran, with its new found power in Iraq and its oil that we so desperately need, nevermind the abovementioned fact of the overstretched US armed forces."

I think you're deluding yourself KP. US didn't lose any leverage because of the Iran issue.

Try substituting Iran with Israel. Then you might be on to something.

Otherwise crawl back under the same rock you crawled out of from in Israel. Careful not to spill your yamaka, or what ever you call it.

I don't know what you two are arguing about. If you'd read each other's comments properly, you'd realise you're basically saying the same thing.

I don't go with "JAckson" or whoever he is, but John Doe is a nutcase from the other end. Iran held Americans hostage for supporting their former government. Is this how we want countries unhappy with our foriegn policy to react? Should Chirac hold American's hostage because our government invaded Iraq against his wishes? Losing him lucrative oil contracts with Saddam Hussein's government?

GW is far from perfect, and probably the worst president we've ever had but this posting feels like you're either an idiot redneck ("Jackson") or forming your own terrorist cell and claiming that Iran is peaceful!

OK, bit of overkill, but the point is we have to help prevent any new nuclear weapons nations from coming into existance, and try to prevent a nuclear holocaust. A country that beats people holding hands in public probably shouldn't be trusted to have nuclear weapons. I'm sure that the palestinians will be "collateral damage" as innocent Muslims have been the collateral damage of suicide bombers across the middle east.

DC,

Go back to Tel Aviv!

DC,

"I don't go with "JAckson" or whoever he is, but John Doe is a nutcase from the other end. Iran held Americans hostage for supporting their former government."

Okay now I am going to answer your "stupid", "ill-informed" statement DC.

First of all the Shah of Iran WAS NOT "THEIR" government! You moron, he was put in power by the west (UK and the US). Get your facts straight.

Second of all, we "over threw THEIR government" that was brought into power by "the people" DEMOCRATICALLY. That would've been Dr. Mossadegh, their once pragmatic prime minister. You moron.

Thirdly, wether you like it or not, our embassy staff were asked to leave that country by the new government, since we didn't recognize the new goverment that was brought into power "by the people's revolution" in Iran. How's that for democract, YOU MORON.

And fourth and finally, the embassy staff was given 2-weeks to leave Iran, but they chose not to for one reason or another. You moron. Probably because we thought we can dictate to them on their own soil. YOU MORON.

Now, how's that for a redneck?! Eh?!

At least I talk with facts, not fiction YOU MORON.

DC,

"I don't go with "JAckson" or whoever he is, but John Doe is a nutcase from the other end. Iran held Americans hostage for supporting their former government."

Okay now I am going to answer your "stupid", "ill-informed" statement DC.

First of all the Shah of Iran WAS NOT "THEIR" government! You moron, he was put in power by the west (UK and the US). Get your facts straight.

Second of all, we "over threw THEIR government" that was brought into power by "the people" DEMOCRATICALLY. That would've been Dr. Mossadegh, their once pragmatic prime minister. You moron.

Thirdly, wether you like it or not, our embassy staff were asked to leave that country by the new government, since we didn't recognize the new goverment that was brought into power "by the people's revolution" in Iran. How's that for democract, YOU MORON.

And fourth and finally, the embassy staff was given 2-weeks to leave Iran, but they chose not to for one reason or another. You moron. Probably because we thought we can dictate to them on their own soil. YOU MORON.

Now, how's that for a redneck?! Eh?!

At least I talk with facts, not fiction YOU MORON.

The NPT does NOT require nuclear states to disarm, but signatories who are not nuclear powers pledge to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear nations pledge not to give the required assets to non-nuclear nations. Sorry, OD, it just ain't so.

butchie b, it always amazes me when people make blunt statements of fact without bothering to check those facts.

NPT
Article VI
'Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.'

How long have you believed that NPT is just a one-way deal? Who told you that? Dick Cheney?

This kind of refusal to check and grasp basic facts is exactly what got American voters into such trouble in Iraq.

I find it strange that people use the words 'moron' and 'redneck'. Such language is not useful for debate.
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that Iran may in fact have only peaceful intentions. Perhaps we could strike a deal where Iran achieves nuclear power without sacrificing our ability to monitor them (in order to ensure they are not using the technology to research weaponry).
Also, I would like to point out that a little tinkering with the Islamic Republic's political system could produce a relatively original form of legitimate democratic representation. We must thus support the currently downcast reform movement within Iran. A moderate reformation of the current governmental system could also deflect the criticism that the Western Democracies wish to remake the world in thier own image. Invasion will of course accomplish nothing in the long run.

hello to all,

I just wanted to say that Iran will eventually become a nuclear state whether world likes it or not.

As an Iranian I would like to say it is Mr.John Doe who is right regarding Iran-US relation. People of Iran want firendly relations with American people however there is agreat distrust for American government which is due to 1953 CIA coup against Dr.Mossadegh. The problem is most Americans do not know why we attacked US embassy; they naively believed what their sophisticated "Cold-War" era propaganda machine told them that Iranians took Americans hostage to "humiliate US."

Long sory made short, the reality is that in 1953 the beloved Dr.Mossadegh forced Shah out of Iran's soil; however Shah went to US and they planned a coup from there and it was US embassy in Iran who was centre of the command. In 1981 Shah was ousted ou of Iran; I think he was in Panama but went to US for medical care; however Iranian thought it is actually another attempt for a coup so Iranian gov. asked US to hand over Shah to Iran but US didn't do it AND that's why we stormed the embassy. however we nevr harmed them; they were even permitted to send message of new year to their families. But all this was fortified by US propaganda machine as "HOSTAGE CRISIS."

If American ppl want to help Iranian ppl, they should help reformists in Iran because everybody is simply exhauted in Iran: first it was the revolution, then it was the imposed war of Iraq-Iran (8 years, Iran standing alone against the aggressor Iraq supported by the World) and now US embargoes on Iran.

So we want change but peaceful change.

An Iranian,

As an American, the peace loving people of Iran have my support.

To listen to some of the claims made by my fellow Americans in regards to Iran (A country which hasn't started a war for hundreds of years) being a aggressor nation, is as if they live on a different planet. Or, are just not well informed when it comes to the facts. And I blame the latter on our "wonderful western journalists". Or the lack there of!

I ask my fellow Americans to open your eyes. Don't buy into the propaganda and the hype orchestrated by the mass-media who doesn't care if our great nation ends up in the gutter (as long as Israel is protected... I am so sick of that crap)like so many other super powers have done in the past. Don't let their NOISE and their TALKING HEADS throw you off the path of what is right. After all it is what made this country great in the first place. To fight for what is right. When you fight on the side of wrong, you will lose, inevitably. America is no loser.

Instead of being after Mr. Bin Laden and his terrorist entourage FULL FORCE for their utterly cowardly act/s. We are knee deep in Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with anything against the US. No Iraqi ever hurt an American before we went over there and bombed them to smithereens and created our own nightmare.

And as far as our allies go: they reap what they sow. If Israel wants to invade and kill its neighbors, take their land and call them terrorists. Let them do so on their own backs. Not on the back of America and the life of its sons and daughters. And face the consequences of their actions "on their own". It isn't our problem or our fight to fight. Perhaps if we don't prop them up like we have been, they will learn to play nice with the other kids in the sandbox.

I hear the same talking heads taking us down the same path in the media and else where. Don't let these traitors drag us into another war that does not serve our great nation one iota.

Peace and prosperity is for all. Not for the chosen few!

We are the greatest nation of all. And if we want to be the greatest nation of all, we need to act accordingly. Or we all be looking at learning how to speak Chinese pretty soon. And me for one have no plans to start learning how to use chop sticks!

Know the facts and act upon them.

To John Doe,
What's with the anti-semitic crap man?
If you can't argue without making stupid racist insults, tnen don't bother.
Maybe you should try the chopsticks---you seem very insular and could do with some exposure and acceptance of other cultures.

We are the greatest country, but when you insult Jews and make crass comments you demean us.

Jim is right about John Doe being "insular". The poor guy doesn't even know history. Example:

"If Israel wants to invade and kill its neighbors, take their land and call them terrorists. Let them do so on their own backs."

Got that wrong Johnny boy. You should read up on the history of the Middle East from reputable sources (cartoons on the net don't count)---might open your eyes. Also, that has nothing to do with the USA's invasion of Iraq. Sure, Israel supported it, but to link the invasion to Israel is stupid.

Two pieces of advice. Get over your Jewish/Israeli complex. Secondly, take atrip outside of the USA and experience another culture. Youhavea lot to learn young man.

Perhaps the good Dr Blix could suggest what might be offered to Iran.

Seems to me that we have to take Iran at its word about destroying Israel, and they cannot be allowed nukes. That said, there is way for them to have a peaceful program (enrichment in Russia), but they said no. Plus, the IAEA found documents about building nuclear weapons. So, why would you have this if your intentions are peaceful?

Smells rotten to me.

Iran is the paymaster and ideological godfather of the most radical terrorist networks in the Middle East. They will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Period. The US President that allows this will be impeached and disgraced.

Less than 10% of available US forces are involved in Iraq today. We can take Iran at the time and place of our choosing. And if this time the Euro-weenies feel like joining in even better. Plus there is always the draft, or better yet, give amnesty to illegal workers and their families if they join the army and we could create a bigger army than the chinese in 6 months. Think of Iraq as a big training exercise.

Jim/Carol,Mike Smith

First of all Jim,

This is a Christian nation, this is NOT the Jewish state. So I don't see how I am demeaning "us". Like I said if the shoe fits, wear it!

Back to tel Aviv for you. Where your "us" lives and preys on the innocent. [digusting].

=================================

And Carol,

The reason why I know what I know about history, "is" because I have lived in multiple countries in my life time (more than probably you have visited, that includes your beloved Israel, I am sure).

So, there goes your theory of "I need to get out"! Nice try though.

And here is my advice to you:

Go back to the kibutz you came from!

===============================

Mike Smith,

Are you for real?!

Unfortunately it has been famously known on internet forums that whenever one criticizes US governments' policies or Israel's and their partisans don't know how to defend themselves with valid arguements, they resort to brand you for a "terrorist" or "racist" respectively.

The US government has essentially had a bone to pick with the Iranian regime since its inception. Being called "The Great Satan" doesn't really help with diplomatic matters. The US's other problem with Iran's government lies in their support of Hezbollah; even before 9/11 our government never really liked it much when governments gave money and weapons to known terror groups.

Now, with the current nuclear issue, there are a number of things that could happen and a lot of things to consider. First, lets not forget that Iran kept their programs secret for 18 years. Not only is this an awful long time, but you also have to consider why they kept it secret for so long. If they simply wanted to develop nuclear energy, they could have turned to Russia or China for development assistance in exchange for oil contracts. All of this could have been kept above-board in the open if they really meant to only develop for peaceful purposes. Since inspections have started, we've seen evidence of laser enrichment (a high-energy, not very cost effective method of developing highly enriched nuclear material), rough plans for making warheads and the knowledge that Mr. A.Q. Khan sold Iran materials and know-how (plus some other items we probably don't know about). The bits and pieces emerging as a result of inspections/intelligence/etc. have been enough to convince both Russia and China that there is more going on than what the Iranian government is saying. Let's also not forget that Iran is sitting on massive oil reserves that could easily meet their energy needs and export needs for a long time. Even the Iranian folks who posted to this blog seem to be implying that nuclear weapon acquisition is only a matter of time. I tend to take these items together as seeing that Iran does in fact have plans to build nuclear weapons.

Why Iran having nukes is a bad thing:

First, the basic reason it isn't a good idea is that the more nations that acquire these weapons, the greater the risk of an escalation in further production from other countries, thus leading the the greater chance of these weapons actually being used. The second reason seems to be the instability of the current regime. Under the conservatives of Iran there seems to be a lack of desire to negotiate in good faith towards some sort of reasonable bargain that makes all sides happy. The reformists seemed much more amenable towards working out a solution to the dilemma, but Ahmadinejad is proving to be intractable, uncooperative and generally unwilling to negotiate a deal that is going to make all sides happy. In effect, the Iranian government wants to have its cake and eat it too. Resurrecting bogus ideas that "The West" is responsible for all their problems and they have to stand up to them, etc. etc. isn't helping the matter. We also have his silly comments about the Holocaust and Isreal, plus rumors that he was surrounded by some sort of halo at the U.N. and a picture emerges of a pretty scary dude. Now, the 64 million dollar question is what Ayatollah What's-his-name is thinking. Is he thinking along the lines of Ahmadinejad or what? Lastly, there is a historical issue of Iran's (Persia's) role in the Middle East. Iran was traditionally a strongman of the region and I think there is a certain element that would like to see this idea reborn. This translates into a scary proposition, especially if the regime has delusions of reasserting power and influence over the rest of the Middle East.

What the U.S. and Allies should do about it:

I would like everyone to gather around a big table and work out their issues. I could see a massive economic package offered by the Allies in exchange for permanent monitoring and control of all fissle material. What would be so wrong with that? Iran would get the energy they claim is all they want, while the West would get reassurance that the material isn't going to be made into bombs. If Iran is genuinely committed to making some sort of deal, this is what we should offer. The influx of money and business would generate much needed jobs for the masses of unemployed, while providing cheap, well educated labor for western industries. This would also reopen Iranian oil markets, providing energy to western countries while the influx of dollars could prop up the Iranian economy. We should be willing to offer even more incentives to Iran for dropping offensive rhetoric and cutting off funding to Hezbollah. A comprehensive package is the best way to go. Unfortunately, Iran has to first show some interest in the idea.

Why this is the best way to go:

If you look back at US foreign policy, our greatest successes have been when we have used our dollars instead of our guns. Europe was reborn from the ashes after WWII because of the Marshall plan. Japan is an amazing success story because of US funding, political restructuring, low tariffs on Japanese products and Japanese hard work. But perhaps South Korea and Taiwan are the best examples. Both governments had moderate dictatorships that didn't like their authority challenged. At some point, the US discreetly, but firmly demanded changes to their government structures after economic success and stability had made the desire and need for political change more acute. Today, both governments have healthy, functioning democracies (please don't argue that Iran is a democracy because it just isn't). Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and the Phillippines are all other examples that are showing both economic and political growth. With an influx of money, Iran would naturally have to move towards more liberalization because the people would demand it. When how you're going to make a living stops being the number one problem in your life and your mind shifts towards more abstract concepts, this naturally brings about a realization of the political conditions in which you live.

It remains to be seen what the end results of this standoff will bring. I would like to see the issue solved peacefully. How much effort does it take for both sides to take a step back and see their courses are heading for an unnecessary collision? The posturing and nonsense of Ahmadinejad is leading Iran down a course that will get their country bombed. It isn't a matter of whether or not Iran is entitled to nuclear technology, the fact remains that other nations don't want them to have it (at least not how Iran wants to have it). I hope both sides can work out some sort of deal that will make both sides happy and maybe bring a little prosperity to the Iranian people.

Ok, OD, ya got me. At some point, we have to begin to negotiate a treaty for total disarmament. Don't hold your breath for the French, Russians, etc. to join us. In any case, it is still a fact that Iran signed and pledged not to develop nukes at all. Ever. And if they wish to withdraw from the treaty, there is a process for doing just that. But that's not what they are doing, is it?

Actually, butchie b, NPT doesn't say "at some point", it says "at an early date".

It's true that the other permanent Five nations are also ignoring their NPT obligations. But arms races are driven by the most heavily-armed power. If they won't stand down, no-one else will.

And the current nuclear arms race has been ignited by the US, which is actively and illegally developing new classes of nuclear weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and others. It has also helped the Israelis put nuclear warheads in their SLCMs, which directly threaten Iran.

There's also the abrogation of the ABM treaty. Missile defence has been sold to the American public as a shield against rogue state launches, but its original purpose was to fight a "winnable" nuclear war against the Soviets by mopping up the weakened response after a sneak US first strike took out most Soviet silos. NMD's only saving grace is that it doesn't work.

The US's current position doesn't even pretend to be aiming for disarmament "at some point". The US has already announced its intention to flout NPT for the rest of eternity. For example, during consultations on the Start-3 Treaty and the ABM Treaty that took place in January 1999 in Geneva, the senior American negotiator, John D. Holum, presented a "Topics for discussion" document that included this paragraph:

"Both the United States of America and the Russian Federation now possess and, as before, will possess under the terms of any possible future arms reduction agreements, large, diversified, viable arsenals of strategic offensive weapons consisting of various types of ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers."

Is that working in good faith towards complete disarmament?

So America is clearly in breach of NPT, as are Britain, Russia, China and France. America is merely the worst offender, because it has the most weapons and is working hardest to keep the world militarised and insecure.

Is Iran in breach of NPT? The reprocessing that it stopped and has now possibly restarted is not actually against the rules of NPT. Iran is being asked to go BEYOND its NPT committments when it's told to stop reprocessing.

There remains the question of secret Iranian weapons programs that would be a breach of NPT. The people pushing this angle are mostly the same as those who pushed Iraqi WMD. Whether they are right or wrong this time, they are certainly exaggerating the urgency. Colin Powell said the other day that Iran is ten years from a bomb.

It would have been possible to stop the reprocessing itself if we had more international cooperation. Many nations have been trying for years to put together a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) that would ban the kind of reprocessing Iran now seeks to do. But for years that treaty was stymied by American opposition.

In 1993, recognising the dangers of Russian HEU and plutonium stockpiles, Clinton finally reversed the US policy of opposition, but Bush has now changed tack again.

Or to be precise, Bush says he supports a FMCT agreement, but wants one without inspection and verification measures - in other words a meaningless facsimile of a treaty. Verification "would require an inspection regime so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries will be hesitant to accept it," said the US Government in 2004. Naturally, he hasn't mentioned this particular policy to the American people.

I know, butchie b, that you will find a way to believe that Iran must obey NPT and these additional demands immediately, but that US/permanent Five disarmament can be put off to some completely imaginary future. It will always be "at some point".

What you really want is for everyone else to disarm first, and then you MIGHT think about it if we ask nicely and say 'sir'. But the only way to stop an arms race is for the leader to stop. Americans seem quite willing to take unilateral steps towards war, but not towards peace.

In fact, America is the natural candidate for taking the first steps. The US brought nuclear weapons into the world. It has the biggest arsenal, and could easily make deep cuts without sacrificing one iota of security. When great powers show serious interest in peace and disarmament, like the Soviet Union did under Gorbachev, the cooling of international tensions is real and immediate.

America's military supremacy would be intact through all stages of disarmament. Its industrial base would also permit it to rearm faster than any possible opponent. Even if we abolished armies entirely, America would remain the most heavily-armed country. Of the world's 750 million guns, 250 million are in the US.

America has no interest in taking such steps, however, because the US government is run by arms dealers, and because the American public has a giant crush on men in uniform.

Iraq, Niger, And The CIA
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006

Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.

Some other interesting items I wanted to share with folks:

The term "military-industrial complex" was actually coined by President Eisenhower back in the 50's. His belief was that the US should focus on building a large nuclear arsenal and that any action taken against the US or one of its allies would be met with "overwhelming response". He was essentially putting Stalin on notice that he would not tolerate any Soviet invasions. The reason for this doctrine was the belief that the United States could save money in the long run and keep the United States from diverting greater and greater percentages of GNP towards the production of military equipment. He also believed that by keeping the military small, he could avoid the US from becoming embroiled in small, ugly proxy wars fought around the world.

Kennedy changed this by formulation of the "flexible response" doctrine, which said the US must be able to respond to conditions based on their circumstances. This obviously led to what Eisenhower feared: increased military spending and ugly proxy wars (Vietnam). Military spending as a percentage of GNP was around 10-11 percent through this time period.

Today's world can't expect an "overwhelming response" doctrine to work; there is no necessity for it. But even with the military budget we have, as a percentage of GNP, military spending is only 3-4 percent. Really not very high when you think the Soviets spent upwards of 40% during the Cold War.

What really needs to happen with the US is more of a turn towards diplomacy. We aren't giving talk much of a chance to solve our problems. Unlike what OD claims, the American people are not generally a warmongering folk. What has caused such a furor is simply the arrogance of the current administration. They have come up against tough problems, but unfortunately, don't know how to respond to these problems in a flexible way that uses all available methods at their disposal to solve the problems.

"the Earth-Penetrator mini-warhead program was scrapped; I don't remember the exact reason, but I believe Congress thought it was too costly and unnecessary."

I've checked this and you're right, the RNEP was scrapped three months ago. The main reason was not cost, but the unified opposition of thousands of American physicists, who pointed out that such a weapon could not destroy deep bunkers but would inevitably kill thousands of civilians. That is because (a) it couldn't really penetrate more than a few dozen feet, and (b) it wasn't a mini-nuke at all, but a megaton-yield weapon. http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=401

The mini-nuke was a quite separate project to the bunker-buster, though the two became conflated in the public mind. Four research projects were announced simulaneously early in the Bush Administration: the RNEP (bunker-buster, the mini-nuke, a new enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb), and an 'anti-WMD' weapon desgined to burn up enemy CBW stocks.

The mini-nuke fell by the wayside earlier, and the RNEP, as you say, has just been scrapped. I'm not sure what became of the other two, though I would hope someone called time on the neutron bomb at an early date.

It's worth noting that the original impetus for these new weapons came not from the Bush Administration, but from Sandia and Livermore labs themselves. Two senior scientists wrote an influential research paper which argued that Cold War citykilling weapons limited the president's maneouverability because their effects were so awful that any president would be "self-deterred" from their use in any scenario short of all-out attack on the US. It was taken as a given that this was a bad thing. Naturally the Pentagon, who've never seen a new weapon they didn't like, were eager to go along. The suspicion remains that the real motivation of the weaponeers was boredom with the monotonous task of stockpile stewardship, and a yearning to return to the heady days of the fifties and sixties.

But I'm pleasantly surprised to hear of the death of the completely unworkable RNEP.

"It will be almost impossible for the world to disarm at this point; none of the nations who currently possess these weapons are capable of trusting the others to a degree enough to completely disarm. The only country to do so successfully was South Africa, and that was because they had no need for them once aparthied was abolished."

I would change that to say: None of the people currently running the nations who possess these weapons are capable of trusting the others to the necessary degree. That's mostly because the weapons themselves create mistrust. And it's partly because our current leaders know their power over us is greatest in an insecure world.

But govts are capable of overcoming historical mistrusts given either (a) better leadership, or (b) a bad enough fright. Europe's states have been through every possible permutation of alliance and emnity. But war exhaustion has brought them to the point where aiming nuclear weapons at each other is unthinkable.

Clearly the sorts of states that are least able to build the necessary trust are those where an illegitimate government relies on playing up foreign threats to keep its people in line (like Pakistan), and those where the military industry has been able to seize the reins of government (like the United States).

South Africa actually killed its nuclear program many years before apartheid ended. Brazil and Argentina both once had quite serious rival nuclear weapons programs which they were able to defuse through negotiation. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/brazil/nuke.htm

Canada had access to US air-launched nuclear missiles in the 1950s, but asked America to take them back when it went non-nuclear under Diefenbaker.

"Even with the military budget we have, as a percentage of GNP, military spending is only 3-4 percent."

Three percent of GNP would account for most of the difference between the growth rates of the American and Chinese economies. America could practically eliminate this gap if they stopped spending eight times more than the Chinese (forty times more per capita) on arms.

It's also about 50% of US federal discrationary spending. Considering the growth of the deficit, I'd say that's pretty significant.

Anyone considering the economic benefits of disarmament could start by looking at Costa Rica, which completely abolished its armed forces in 1949. Since then it has become, by the CIA's account, 'the success story of central America. Costa Ricans are rich, fat, safe and happy. Their neighbours have been mired in civil war and poverty, and mostly governed by military dictators. Honduras and El Salvador actually went to war over the result of a football match.

But the real economic benefit of disarmament is not about saving money on weapons. It's about not having your entire economy, and everything else, destroyed in a nuclear war.

"Couldn't it be possible for (Iran) to think that after acquiring nuclear weapons, they figure they could destroy Isreal in a limited exchange and only lose a few major cities?"

This is the one thing you say that I take really serious issue with. Can you really believe that any state would be prepared to "lose a few major cities" to strike an enemy? Including Tehran, one of the world's biggest cities, more crucial to Iran than Paris is to France?

Even if the Iranians were this crazy, you underestimate Israel's nuclear capability. Israel has enough nuclear weapons to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000 people simultaneously.

"Unlike what OD claims, the American people are not generally a warmongering folk."

Then I suggest that they find leaders who better represent their peaceful outlook, because it's undeniable that America gets into an awful lot of wars, more than any other country. And many of its recent wars have later been judged by history, and by Americans themselves, to have been ill-advised and unnecessary.

A good start would be to bar people who work or have worked in the 'defence' industry from senior government positions. Such a move would leave Washington half deserted, of course.

Mike,

'We can take Iran at the time and place of our choosing'???

You overestimate yourself, Iran is no Iraq and would be no 'push over' for US forces. Anyway, do you like to see US soldiers - most of whom are children - being sent back in body bags? Is that what you want? Are you a soldier? are any of your relatives soldiers? Or are you hiding behind the poor souls that will die in your foolish name. What has happened to America when the solution to every problem is War.

Brian,

Iran is a very old nation, one that is steeped in history and culture, they are survivors. The men that are in power may say stupid things sometimes but that does not make them stupid. They are reasonable, well educated and well informed. Actually, Iranians are generally quite well educated and they fully understand the implications of any nuclear exchange and, as such, would -most probably - never engage in any such action. You are right, the US Government needs to get back to the lost art of diplomacy. It is the only viable solution.

PJ Casey,

As usual on these blogs you make a sound and well thought our argument.

John Doe,

You're on the right track but you need to stop insulting the poor souls around you. Educate rather than criticize, it's the only way to get trough to people. Chill.

OD,

As usual you back up your arguments with good facts, one point, however, the US is run not only by arms dealers but also, and more to the point these days, oil companies.

Iranian,

I lived in Iran for some years in the 80's and agree with you completely vis a vis the Iranian people. They are so misunderstood - especially by the US - it's frightening.

In order to avoid looking like I am simply commenting on others, I will restate my opinion on this matter, which I originally wrote on a previous blog, as follows:

Modern Islamic Iran was created by America. In 1953 when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, namely, Mr. Mohammed Mossadegh tried (and succeeded) to oust the corrupt and tyrannical Shah the US intervened (Operation Ajax) to restore their ally to the throne. Mr. Mossadegh began by a move to nationalise the oil industry, something that America could not and would not accept since this would completely destroy Americas overwhelming control of Iran's oil and, as a result, Operation Ajax was set into motion.

The resulting 25 year rule - supported wholeheartedly by the US in exchange for oil, various huge military and other contracts, as well as a subservient ally with a very large army - was marked by extreme corruption, at the expense of the majority of the population, and was maintained through the liberal use of SAVAK (the ruthless Iranian security and intelligence organization) and their torture chambers. These factors, combined with the Shah's continuing avoidance of allowing any form of democracy or any meaningful civic and political liberties, eventually led to a popular uprising in 1978 - 1979 that allowed the cleric Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic to succeed the Shah.

Operation Ajax was the first time that the US overthrew a Middle Eastern Government, a democratically elected one at that, and the result is modern Islamic Iran. So much for the US ideology of democracy! America creates its own demons - and the list in long, including a certain Mr. Saddam Hussein - and then wonder why the world turns against them.

Of course the history noted above is short hand and some very pertinent details and American mistakes - which are being repeated again and again - have been omitted, however, I am sure you get the jist of it :).

In my humble opinion, Iran should be free, under the right international (not American) controls, to develop its nuclear capabilities. The Iranians fully understand that using a nuclear device against its neighbours, notably, Israel, would basically ensure its own destruction and they are - regardless of the nonsensical statements that they may publicly (and to their own discredit I might add) make - in no hurry to destroy themselves. They have survived many thousands of years and I very much doubt that they will allow themselves to be drawn into a nuclear confrontation that will result in their, and most of the Arab worlds (including Israel), annihilation.

Anyway, it will give some long awaited and much needed balance to the region and will force America (and Israel) and to think hard before it meddles in the region for their own gain and at the cost of the local populace. A good example of such meddling for its own gain would, I dare say, be Iraq?

Stone,

One thing about the oil. World reserves are estimated at 100 years (not 45), this is not the real problem. The problem in the industry is not - currently - the quantity of oil available but the lack of processing facilities (refineries) available which is due to the now huge cost of insurance to cover environmental disasters. As a result refineries in the US and Western Europe have been shutting down at an incredible rate and there is now an almost critical shortage of processing capabilities. This being said new refineries are being built, to offset this problem, in Eastern Europe, the Middle East (Iran, Jordan, Yemen and more) and China (China mostly for its own use). This is part of the reason the America needs to stay in the Middle East, it wants to control the flow and the subsequent processing of the oil (thus controlling prices and destinations of the oil) and, with this in mind and in light of the current situation, it has no immediate reason to pull back from the Middle East or to adopt any new 'energies'.

You are quite right, however, in your statement that Iran, like many other oil countries in the Middle East (Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc..) are implementing policies to move away from their huge reliance on oil. The nuclear option - as viable alternative to oil - is a sound one and one that will also enable Iran to 'export' electricity to its neighbours thus giving them a new source of income. An example is Iraq which is in dire need of electrical power - a part of their infrastructure that has been badly beaten and that will need a long time to repair properly - and Iran will happily supply this.

NH, I've read often that these estimates are inflated because each OPEC member gets a pumping quota based on their declared reserves so they all have an incentive to exaggerate them. In fact they all boosted their estimates dramatically in the late 80s. Yet they found no significant new fields, they just declared that their old estimates had been too conservative. The world gained 300 billions barrels this way, about ten years' demand. On paper.

In any case, the number of years' reserves we have is less key than the issue of peak oil, when the total daily quantity of pumpable oil begins to tail off. Given the ever-mounting demand, a crunch is inevitable long before 45 or 100 years. Even oil industry optimists put peak oil around 2020.
There's a great article about it at http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article339928.ece

Also in this article, the head of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) says his country has overstated its reserves dramatically, and they are about 37 billion barrels, not 91 billion as cited by western oil experts based on OPEC figures. There seems to be a widespread opinion among experts that Iran has a lot less oil than some people have suggested in the past.

Maybe I missed it, but is anyone in this blog aware that the new President of Iran is part of a group that believes that a 5 year-old immam who disappeared 1000's of years ago will return to earth in the midst of total chaos in order to bring peace on the earth. Did you know that the president and this group believe that this is to happen within the next 2 years? Combine this with the talk of wiping out Israel, and I think that it is clear that we should be very concerned that Iran not have access to any nuclear technology at this point in their history.

The West are probably right to protect their interests in israel and in the middle east by keeping iran from going nuclear- but are they doing it in the right manner. If you were in iran, and you see that israel has a lethal nuclear arsenal. Then pakistan and india are nuclear armed. Add to that the tremendous wealth pouring into iran- so what do they do with the great wealth surplus- they will naturally try to get nuclear weapons- which they know are a passport to world respect and power. All the 5 security members of UN are nuclear powers. India , inspite of having over a billion people and nuclear arms has been side-lined by the UN world powers. The best thing to do is to make the whole world non-nuclear. Will the 5 UNSC members give up their nuclear power?. If not then they cannot have the moral strength to prevent other nations from getting nuclear power-legally or clandestinely- regards- hiro bachani- http://www.merlin-me.com

Why argue? Why don't we just go into Iran and help them build nuclear reactors on the condition that we will have inspectors on the premises 24/7. As long as the current administration is all for wars, doesn't look too good.

I have seen funny things before but this really tops everything! Cant any of you see it?!?! The Iranians want to have a nuclear umbrella, to keep the US from planning to attack, look, I was in the military not 5yrs ago and I tell you I got tired of policing the world, we have lost our edge we are not and can not build nations to mimic our own, yeah we come in peace with guns blaring, I was behind those same guns before, but one thing I did notice is that who we had in front of our guns were no match for us, We pick and choose our fights carefully, we thought we could beat N. Vietnam, they handed us our asses, so we pick on the smaller kids on the block and beat them down, N. Korea ha ha anyone of you have said we should go after them! ! You are rally nuts, and thats why you dont hear anything about them in the news, (NO MILITARY OPTION) why?? Because we would loose too many people to do it, we cant fight China, we cant fight Russia, so lets pick off the easy fights and feel real big about ourselves and spawn more terrorist and freedom fighters as we go along, oh and by the way anyone who never put on a US BDU and jumped into a shooting war can shut up because you'll be sitting on your ass watching it on CNN while real men are getting their war on......