Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has confirmed Iran will not drop its Uranium enrichment programme, but will provide ‘objective guarantees’ to European negotiators, namely the governments of Britain, France and Germany, acting on behalf of the EU. Meanwhile the United States has denounced Iran’s ‘development of nuclear weapons’ while quietly modernising its own arsenal.

As reported in Time Magazine, the Iran nuclear facilities have been under construction for well over 2 years, under USA surveillance and International Atomic Energy consideration. As early as February 2003 the IAEA raised concerns that Iran was violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which the country is a signatory (1970). Of particular concern to the US and apparently the West in general is the security of Israel, surrounded in the Arab-dominated middle-east, and already having destroyed a partly constructed nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981.

“It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous."

Experts from the Vienna-based IAEA have now gathered evidence of weapons-grade uranium at the Natanz nuclear plant south of Tehran. Iran conceded it has received foreign help, and the Washington Post speculates Pakistan may be responsible, that country having refused to sign the NPT. Still Iran has continued to insist that the nuclear power facilities are for electricity purposes only, and has sited the numerous references in the NPT of each member states autonomous rights in regards to peaceful use of nuclear power.

For example, in article III

‘[…this article attempts to] avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties, or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities…’

And in article IV
'Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with…this Treaty.’
The issue therefore is the extent to which the IAEA is permitted access into Iran, the Iranian governments co-operation with the nuclear governing body, and potential breaches of Articles I and II detailing what constitutes ‘peaceful nuclear activities.’ Clearly Iran has a legal and economic right to continue development of certain branches of nuclear technology.

The Iranian nuclear threat to the US and potentially other Western powers is currently based on suspicion, as highlighted by the head of the IAEA 2 weeks ago. Said Mohammed ElBaradai;

‘We know North Korea has the plutonium that can go into the bomb, but
we have not seen any such material in Iran."

North Korea, he said, represents an "imminent threat or an imminent danger," while Iran is merely suspected of having a nuclear program.

US suspicions, based on international ‘intelligence,’ have of course been recently and historically undermined, and democratic ‘success’ in Iraq is believed by many to be a coincidental fallout of failed weapons intelligence, more an afterthought than a pre-determined objective. The WMD’s and biological weapons, capable of deployment in 45 minutes (claimed Tony Blari), failed to appear at the conclusion of a costly and illegal war. Is democracy better for Iraq than dictatorship? Most probably. Did the ends justify the means? Many would argue absolutely not, and history would probably be inclined to agree.

Examination of the Iraq war has of course been saturating the media for the past 3 years, but at no time has it been more relevant than now, considering the parallels between Iraq and Iran in the eyes of the Bush administration. Particular mention should be given to the recent February 24th comments made by President Bush;

‘…these rumours that the US is going to invade Iran are ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table.’

The ‘rumours’ were officially initiated in an article by New York author Seymour Hersh. In ‘The Coming Wars’ Hersh reports President Bush signed a series of top-secret executive orders authorising secret CIA and alternate ‘commando’ groups to conduct covert operations against suspected targets in 10 Middle East and South East Asia countries.

Hersh was rebutted by Pentagon Spokesman Lawerence Di Rita, who claimed the article was ‘So riddled with errors that the credibility of the entire piece was destroyed.’

Yet Defence Department Spokesman Lt Col. Barry Venable, commenting on the reported operations, explained;

‘We don’t discuss missions, capabilities or activities of our Special Operational Forces.’

When does the US intend to become as transparent and accountable with its politics as it expects other countries to be?

Di Rita went on to comment, ‘The Iranian regime’s apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organisations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment.’ America’s support for terrorist organisations should not go un-noted, with especial consideration given to the sale of arms to opposing sides of the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980’s, with profits directed towards the training and equipping of the murderous, counter-democratic Contras in Nicaragua under the Reagan Administration.

One might add that the nuclear ambitions of every country require more serious treatment, not least the US itself. The Treaty makes direct reference to the arms race of the Cold War, and the need of the 5 recognised nuclear states to downsize their nuclear arsenal, a duty the United States has neglected through the Clinton and now Bush Administrations. According to William Broad, author for the International Herald Tribune, around 100 specialists at the 3 US nuclear weapons laboratories are involved in an initial $9 million project to design completely new weapons.

As quoted from the Non-Proliferation Treaty,

‘[The Treaty] Considers the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to make measures to safeguard the security of peoples.’

Every country with nuclear capabilities, from the US to Israel to North Korea and China, sites the possession of nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent of political enemies. This logic is utterly ridiculous, contradicting every point of the NPT to which all except North Korea are signed. North Korea has recently announced its own development of nuclear weapons, declared, of course, as a deterrent to foreign intervention. As a member of the 3 way ‘Axis of Evil,’ North Korea was signalled out by President Bush as an enemy of America. The concept is fatally counter-productive however, when it is considered that the only state on the axis of evil known NOT to control WMD’s is Iraq, which has been invaded. If ever there was an incentive for North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear capabilities it was the treatment of their counterpart Iraq. Furthermore, the Axis of Evil sounds less rational when it is considered that North Korea is a communist state with no political ties to Iran or Iraq, and that Iran, a Moslem theocracy, was at war with Iraq, officially a secular dictatorship, less than 20 years ago.

It is a strange and powerful irony that those descriptions hard-line western governments use to describe Islamic, communist and even democratic ‘rogue nations’ are the very same phrases used by ‘rogue nations’ to describe the United States, Britain, Australia and other freedom fighters. A bruising January editorial, written by Jomhouri Eslami in Tehran, called President Bush ‘stupid,’ ‘wicked’ and a ‘war-monger.’ Authorities in Iran have warned that a US-led intervention would be like ‘falling out of the frying pan into the fire.’ Condoleezza Rice defined the regime in Iran as not authoritarian but ‘totalitarian’ and ‘rogue.’

Certainly, it would be an extremely negative development for Iran to obtain nuclear weapon capabilities, not least because of the radical nature of both the Iranian theocracy and her enemies. The historically and currently volatile nature of the Arabian Peninsula hardly prescribes the addition of more nuclear weapons to the region.

Here is the vital point, and a catch 22. The US requires, by necessity of ‘national security’ and deterrence, such weapons the administration sees fit. Annual US military spending is grossly dis-proportioned to that of any other country, and in fact overshadows the GDP of many smaller nations.

But, by the same reasoning, the enemies of the US are absolutely obliged to acquire weapons of their own. How could the USSR function following WWII with missile turrets pointing at her from across Europe? Who says America will not use her might to smudge her enemies into oblivion. Cue soviet subs on their way to Havana, and the obvious consequence of a nuke-for-a-nuke that successive US administrations have failed, or refused, to recognise. But how can the two remaining countries on the ‘axis of evil’ fail to realise that their only hope to avoid US intervention is to secure a deterrent in the form of a WMD?

The Bush administration has consistently undermined the NPT and the UN in regards to nuclear weapons, and in doing so has derided and broken the international laws which it now uses to spotlight Iran. The nuclear situation, particularly in regards to the US, North Korea and Iran is growing dangerously close to a crisis point.

Both administrations view the other as the uncomplicated, black and white enemy. Through propaganda, meaningless and provocative threats, and steadfast preconceptions, both administrations are likely to find that their biggest enemy is themselves.

There's a good chance someones going to post something along the lines of "Oh noes Bush is going to invade Iran OMGWTFBBQ!!!``!!1!one!"

Let me explain why this almost certainly won't happen:

Iran is a much, much bigger fish than Iraq (both in land area and military strength). There is no way Iran could be invaded in the current administration without a draft, and there won't be a draft because this would be political suicide for the Republicans (especially after they so adamantly declared there would be no draft). Despite his lack of eloquence, Bush is not as stupid as he seems, and he has some very clever, pragmatic men advising him.

Such a war would only happen if something very big were to happen as a pretext for war (eg. an Iranian attack on Israel, an Iranian nuclear weapons test, etc).

At the very most, the US may conduct airial operations against strategic targets in the hopes of aiding or igniting a local uprising (or, more likely, to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities), and of course the CIA will continue its meddling.