If Jerome, Melo, and others want to argue "let's get out of the way and let Iran follow the path to becoming a nuclear power",,,if that is a fair characterization, and I'm not sure it is,,,,but let's ask them to make that argument.  If others want to support an approach of the world supporting the nonproliferation treaty, and are fearful of Iran with its threats to Israel, let them support their postion.  

For instance, I support the NPT but am not particularly concerned about Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric because it has no teeth: Israel is the country with the 200 nukes outside the NPT. A also think we should get out of the way of Iran's nuclear energy development, while working to prevent nuclear weapons proloferation.

The Bush administration has recently started making noises about the NPT being unenforceable, implicitly saying the IAEA is irrelevant (as the UN was said to be irrelevant if it didn't go along with what the US wanted in 2002/2003). I interpret this as a pre-emptive strike on the IAEA should it not report to the UN Security Council in the harsh terms that the US wants.

Iran is not known to be in violation of any of its international obligations (we'll see about the IAEA report when it's out), and the US has a long history of violent overt and covert meddling in other nations' affairs, including a long history of meddling with Iran prior to 1979, even though it has been erased from the US institutional memory. From the CIA world fact book:

Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile.

• I don't see Iran to be a threat to anyone;

• I expect their anti-Israel threats to be more rhetoric than anything and I personally think (but I understand Israelis not wanting to make that bet themselves) that they will go along with any real resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict that is acceptable to the Palestinians themselves;

• I understand how Iran feels threatened by the USA (a long history of meddling, 2 neighbors invaded, bellicose statements) and sees that those ocuntries with nuclear weapons are "respected" a lot more

• I see humongous hypocrisy on the nuclear front, with inconsistent enforcement of treaties, and inconsistent diplomacy towards countries that have not signed the relevant treaties or are in breach (cf Israel, India, Pakistan), and I understand Iran calling this out; Ultimately, our lack of seriousness on the nuclear front dooms us to failure;

• I am not even convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger.

This is a major reason for why I think the US should take the advantage of getting out of the way, because Israel doesn't need anyone to defend her.  Why are we continuing to feed the Islamist propaganda by giving them ammunition in the "Is the US Israel's Prison Bitch?" argument?  It's a major reason, I'm convinced, for 9/11 and various other attacks over the last twenty years.

Also, a nuclear attack on Israel translates to an attack on Palestine.  The Palestinians would be slaughtered -- if not by the bomb, itself, then by the fallout.  Iran has no incentive to attack Israel.  A nuclear attack would mean the end of Iran.

The Islamists' demands are fairly clear: They want us off their land.  Out of Saudi Arabia (more than any other area), out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and off their oil -- though bin Laden has clearly never studied economics, because oil is the only good that anyone requires from the Middle East.  Take away the oil dependency, and every leader in the West could tell the Saudi Royals, "Go to hell, you brutal pigs.  If you want to trade with us, you're going to trade on our terms, politically."  If we could end our oil dependency, we could dictate to the thugs who control Middle East countries and really work for democracy and freedom -- and without firing a shot.

Anyway, I've ranted enough.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

i think the usa should disembarass themselves of nukes, for war or peace, too!

we don't want the usa as a global cop.

once we might have been grateful for it, but times have changed, and the discrepancy between the bush administration's rhetoric and actions is huge and growing, whether it be about this issue, or torture, or your own economy and trade deficit, whatever.

simply put, we don't trust your government's intentions are noble.

we'd be gullible fools to think otherwise, imo.

the arab and european 'street' are deeply suspicious of the usa agenda to control dwindling world resources by force.

it's much bigger than just the iran issue, though that is quite emblematic enough to be an excellent example.

trying to have it both ways, whether about the port security, or about nukes being ok in india and pakistan but not iran, only cuts it with a dumbed-down populus and a lying media.

i can't speak for the arabs, but in europe we get more reality in the media (even if still not nearly enough).

so does it really surprise you, our attitude?

i'm now on record....lol!

i keep wondering why you enjoy this blog, you seem so contrarian a lot of the time.

i like the contrast though, cheers.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

Some people say that this is exactly the same situation prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Well I'd say not quite.  There was no conclusive evidence of Iraq ever having a fully operational nuclear facility ready to enrich uranium.  The Saddam regime had the ambitions of becoming a nuclear power and did what they could to make it happen but had a long way to go.  The IAEA and indeed the Iranian regime, have verified that they now have the capability and the intent to enrich uranium themselves and thus the evidence is there plain to see beyond any reasonable doubt.  What seems to be a striking resemblance to the Iraqi cases is the call for immediate military action and the mantras of danger and urgency being put forward.      

Now how is the international community to deal with such a possibility?  First of all if there are countries I would not like to see develop nuclear weapons, Iran is certainly on the top of my list for the reasons mentioned above.  Still, I don't think that there is a military solution to this, at least not yet, and if it was to come to such a solution the Iranians would just rebuild there facilities after they have been bombed, thus the only lasting solution would be a diplomatic one with a mutual consent to and understanding of how this issue is to be solved.  First of all I'd suggest:

1.  That the negotiations with Iran continue even if the case are being reviewed by the UN Security Council and that the negotiations are given the necessary time and emphasise.  Still, that doesn't mean that the talks shouldn't have a time frame since that could allow the Iranians to filibuster and prolong the negotiations while they continue their research.

2.  If the talks are forestalled and there seems to be no solution in site, that the UN Security Council impose sanctions on Iran that have a timeframe until they are willing to comply or enter into meaningful talks.

3.  If nothing comes out of the sanctions and no meaningful negotiations are initiated with no prospect of a solution, that the UN Security Council discuss alternative ways to the sanctions, which could mean limited military action.  

it's a brilliant q and a with howard zinn.

'we' . have. to. stop. meddling.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

According to these analysts, U.S. foreign policy appears to have distanced this nation from the realities illuminated by Lattimore.  Like an enraged bull unable to shift its gaze from the illusion of threat to real causal forces, the current regime seems pathologically addicted to control strategies that no longer work, if they ever worked in the first place.  Chalmers Johnson, an ex-U.S. Naval officer and esteemed political scientist  described some of the most flagrant of these failures in his best selling 2000 book,  Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Concerning South Korea he wrote, "The rule of Syngman Rhee and the U.S.-backed generals was merely the first instance in East Aisa of the American sponsorship of dictators.  The list is long, but it deserves reiterations simply because many in the United States fail to remember (if they ever knew) what East Asians cannot help but regard as a major part of our postwar legacy."

Has the author missed the ongoing economic miracle in India and China--2.5 billion people coming out of poverty,,,,it's truly a miracle.  Bush's visit to India just highlighted what has been underway for years.  Does the author forget that 20 years ago India was viewed as firmly in the USSR's zone of influence?  Yes there are still problems in East Asia, particularly with North Korea and Iran.  But the overall trend has to be viewed as very positive.  I think, as we've discussed on the website and a number of others agree, that India and China are likely to be dominant economic powers in 2050--I for one say hurrah!  Prosperous people are normally peaceful people, unless they are attacked--and we certainly won't be attacking those two countries.  We're trying to build relationships with both and have been for 30+ years.  And of course I don't attribute these accomplishments to Bush,,,,this is American policy over the course of Democratic and Republican leadership.  But, IMHO, Bush is not negating that effort.