To the Iranian:

I do recall you brought up death and natural disaster in attempt to insult the U.S. government and the dead in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina has nothing to do with nuclear technology in the Middle East.

It appears it is the only part you read of my posts.

An easy way out of answering a complicated problem is to question the mental capability of the person you are arguing with. I haven't read an argument that disproves my logic. Also, please get a professional psychologist to determine my "delusion" and make sure he only reads my posts on an internet blog.

When persons disagree with other people, I hope that for the sake of world peace, Iranians (as painted with the broad brush with which you label American) do not jump to insult their fellow debaters in the manner in which you have treated me. I do not recall calling you or "Iranians" in general names such as "hot headed." I would not presume to label all Iranians. So where the U.S. "hotheaded" nationality comes from my posts, I cannot find. In fact, I cannot really find a single ad hominem attack on anyone. Your posts and the author's article use this technique often. Please prove "hotheaded" and please refer to your own national identity and its imperfections when you attempt this colossal philosophical and sociological undertaking about the U.S. This information will be critical to one nation-one vote. I'll bet the nuclear issue is solved faster than your answer is achieved.

And again I say to you:

If deterrence is a Cold War mentality and non-proliferation treaties eliminate nuclear deterrence, why does the U.S. have a Cold War mentality if it has the goal of non-proliferation and wants to remove deterrence?

The nations that you cited before as having nuclear weapons had nuclear power at one time and it was assumed that they weaponized nuclear material shortly after creating nuclear power. It is a logical deduction that if a nation, with a militant policy to other world powers and their allies, acquires nuclear power, that it will follow the past trend of other nations that develop nuclear weapons. That creates deterrence because the U.S. must suspect that Iran has some nuclear capability, and do to its secrecy and lack of governmental accountability, will produce weapons to secure and augment its position in the region. That is a basic geopolitical calculation.

Arms buildups and the faints of technological innovation in such areas as nuclear science are keys features of what occurred during the Cold War. The struggle with the Soviet Union was based on geopolitics and especially a battle of ideologies. So how does Iran ignore its rivals, who it views ideologically and religiously, create new technology that has historically threatened other nations because of its power, and not be held accountable for trying to deter its rivals through nuclear technology. I think Iran is abandoning non-proliferation to deter the U.S. I have argued that Iran is creating a Cold War mentality to maintain and expand its influence.

The U.S. certainly does not rule the world, nor do I believe it should. However, it is an impossibility that all nations have equal power, people, resources, and therefore representation in a non-existent global and harmonious government. Are Muslims or traditional Iranians willing to be part of a one-country vote international government, with real power and force, if its governance could be influenced or policies dictated by majorities of non-Muslim members with non-traditional practices? If Israel is one country with one vote, why wouldn't it be an any less a global member than Iran? Do you expect to have equal access to China, the world's most populous nation? Hindu India? Can other nations expect equal rights and treatment in Iran, if they are Christians from say Denmark? Will Iran join in on Western notions of free speech? Do you redraw borders to reflect ethnicity? Who will have this great power of redrawing the globe?

Please answer your questions like I refer to and read your posts. That's international courtesy after-all.

The poster above is really delusional. three plane loads of blankets for earthquake stricken people is not exactly enough to make a world policy issue out of it. Iran did say thank you and offered help in return for New Orleans but hotheaded folks back in USA refused. So much for that score which is now even.

Iran is not your enemy. Your absurd mentality in America is your enemy. As the article states, the cold war has not ended in your country.

America can not rule the world and it MUST join the rest of the world around a table with only one equal vote and no more.

To Iranian:

You missed the entire point of my post. It is an explanation of U.S. foreign policy and the rationale behind it. If one chooses to believe something logically and realistically incorrect, like the U.S. as a colony of Israel, that is your choice. Because money and people move from nation to another and because a small minority in the larger country are of a common race, does that mean that the U.S. is a colony of Iran because Iranian people come here to economize freely? I do not want the U.S. to be a colony of Iran.

The U.S. will continue acting geopolitically and so will Iran. Will Iran take out Hezbollah or Hamas, groups and leaders it supports, if they became a danger to regional stability? The U.S. and Iran have had troubled relations for decades independent of Israel's interests. It is far easier to blame Israel, and a giant multi-national conspiracy, than to come to understandings. The U.S. also has good relations with most of the world with Arabs and Jewish people in those nations. If Iran simply has good relations with many countries, does that mean it will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons to prevent a souring of those relationship? Using your logic, will Iran never have good relations with countries with Jewish persons in them because they want to prevent more countries to falling into Jewish colonization? Nonsense. And conversely, does that mean it does not really have good relations if other good nations vote in places like the Security Council to deny nuclear technology?

How does one to come to understandings when another person from another country makes wild assertions about natural disasters in another country?

There was enough "eggs" to fry for New Orleans and there was enough U.S. food and aid for the Iranian people after deadly earthquakes.

It is a logical fallacy to doubt a person's views simply because one believes propaganda is strictly behind their views. I'm not sure your sources of information, nor what the Iranian government allows without arrest, but I can tell you that I read independent sources of information. If that were not the case, I wouldn't be posting on this site disagreeing with the premise behind this article? The author is Iranian as well? One may continuously claim that what I post is based on propaganda, but what is the propaganda and what is the evidence?

What about U.S. foreign policy has a propaganda origin as I explained it? What media offers government propaganda and where can that information be found in my posts, and if the Washington Post global site is a propaganda site, why are you reading Western propaganda? And what is factually incorrect about what I explained about U.S. foreign policy?

Save the conspiracies and the insults about deceased persons in disasters and American food items. Those ideas do not help understanding.

BULKY BOB

You are the text book example of how Americans are bombarded by propaganda to the extent that their judgement is warped beyond repair and believe it because it was repeated on TV.

First of all, a very large majority of people and governments in the world trust Iran, have diplomatic relations with Iran and do business in a cordial way.
The hype against Iran is fabricated by Israel (itself a failed state, mostly out of paranoid views) and put into action by its colony-- USA! Washington is Israeli-occupied territory.

Iran has never attacked a neighbour for the last 500 years, long before there was a USA or Israel or a modern Europe for that matter. If Americans cannot, or have not taken the time to, understand Iran, it is not Iran's problem.

There is no need for Iran to "cheat" under the NPT because it is not getting the benefits of cooperation from other member states. If it wanted to produce weapons, it could have simply quit NPT (like North Korea). Iran could not be more progressive than offering to put all of its nuclear activities in partnerships with foreign countries on Iranian soil (as Ahmadinejad proposed 2 years ago) to set aside the baseless worry.

Finally, Iran only needed to show to the region and the rest of the world that it is capable and knowledgable to produce atomic weapons if the need arises....or if another Saddam is propped up to attack Iran.

So, will America promise that the Cold War is finished? and it will not set up another puppet named Saddam and arm him with chemical weapons? That is called "security guarantees" in diplomatic talk and America has not come forward to offer that to Iran...only stupid bully policies, failing sanctions and egg on its face is America's true track record(in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region). There is enough egg to make a big omlette and feed all homeless people in New Orleans!

To the Iranian,

Read my previous long post about why we have NPT's and why Iran, in spite of being a N.P.T. member, is not trusted by the international community in the West to stick to strictly civilian, power means. The West is responsible for the idea of non-proliferation. (after all it did invent and use nuclear technology for good and bad)

It is assumed that non-Western countries feel they have should have 1. nuclear material 2. advanced missile systems and 3. nuclear weaponry to balance out other powers. One may include India and Pakistan as examples. These nations feel it is in their strategic interest to develop nuclear technology for strategic means.

Iran's strategic competitor, with Saddam dead, is primarily Israel. Israel has a nuclear weapons program that it does not openly admit. However, in spite of decades of regional competition with Iranian proxies and the threat to its existence as a nation, it has reserved use of the technology for obvious destructive and public relations means. I do not believe that Iran would actively seek to destroy Israel pre-emptively, with a nuclear weapon. However, I do think that in a regional conventional war, Iran will try to remove the nation of Israel to augment the size of bordering Arab nations, create a Palestine state, and banish the Jewish people. In a less bellicose form, those goals are stated policies from the Iranian government. Its longer term goal is to become a regional hero to Arab nations and to bolster Shia Islam over their Sunni rivals. I think that goal is directly contrary to Western diplomacy over the past decades which have culminated in a few goals: A two-state solution, with Palestine and Israel, a stable balance between the two sects and no ethnic removals, non-proliferation in the Middle East to prevent regional powers from further militarizing the situation with complicated factors of deterrence, and the reduction of insurgent and militaristic radical groups supported as proxies from nations like Iran and Syria. In Iran, non-proliferation means holding the progress, religion, and power of Iran back. In the West, non-proliferation means preventing a further militarization of the region by giving the most destructive technology to a lead destablizer of its neighbours and a restoration of balance in the region.

The recent N.I.E., incorrectly lauded in Iran, detected the obvious. With no fissile materials and a growing, but incomplete delivery capability, of course there is no Iranian nuclear weapons capability (3). In the U.S., readers who do not have a political agenda essentially thought the estimate offered nothing new. The real propaganda aspect of this current dispute relies on the twisting and misreading of the N.I.E. in the first place from opponents of the Bush diplomatic strategy to Iran.

As I argued before, Iran wants the deterrent threat of being able to produce nuclear material and the weaponry to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack. Iran does not need to take the third step in the progression if it can cause doubt in the West about its intentions in the first place. Either Iran is thwarted from having nuclear fissile material or it will be assumed in the West that Iran has a deterrent capability whether it can deliver its own nuclear material by missile or not. That fact might cause a pre-emptive strike to eliminate military or nuclear installations before they become too complex.

See Saddam Hussein's policies to Iran, his desire for deterrence against Iran, and his troubles and downfall because of the West. The Bush policy is not a double standard because it attempts to thwart steps 1. and 2. to prevent Iran from have a deterrent capability. Non-proliferation is a Western idea, attempting to thwart the spread of Western technology, to preserve Western interests. The reason non-proliferation came from the Cold War was because the U.S. and the Soviet Union came to an agreement to remove the complicated layers of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. How will Iran having a deterrent effect not complicate regional stability? Isn't adding deterrence and even the mirage of nuclear weaponry central to what non-proliferation tries to prevent?

Iran is specifically the kind of nation that treaties concerning non-proliferation protect nuclear technology from reaching. Will Iran proliferate more or less if it has a deterrent capability and if it does give out technology, who will prevent the use of such technology against, say civilians in places like Israel used by groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas?

How do new levels of deterrence add to peace and not create a new Cold War mindset?

BULKY BOB

You are correct that the NPT is about non-proliferation. As the author states, the treaty is a system to help member states with civilian programs. In fact, Article 4 of the treaty sets up an obligation of member states to help each other.

The double standard stems from America helping or turning a blind eye to ALL non-members of NPT when these non-members have broken the spirit of NPT by developing nuclear weapons-- Israel (the Siamese twin of USA?), India (because it is now important), Pakistan (because it was a good rig-up against India) and most recently North Korea. In the meanwhile, Iran is punished for following NPT rules.

I responded to no other propaganda other than the article. I questioned why there is a double standard concerning non-proliferation if the U.S. is working with non-NPT members to stop non-proliferation? Isn't non-proliferation the goal?

I think the posters who compared the mindset in the U.S. government to the Cold War are completely wrong. The Cold War was highlighted by a constant nuclear arms increase. It took decades of diplomacy and proxy conflicts to create a relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union to stop proliferation. The Cold War ended partly because of agreements during the Reagan administration and political and economic collapse in the Soviet system.

The foreign policy of the U.S. since the end of the Cold War has been, not ironically, a post-Cold War policy of trying to the stop spread of nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration sought to contain nuclear weapons with North Korea. In hindsight, they were not successful. The Bush policy, in an age of fundamentalist Islamic attacks, has to been to contain nuclear weapons from the same countries that were problems during the 90's.

America does not have a Cold War mindset if it has negotiated with communist governments about nuclear weapons, the central weapon and competitive ideology from 1945-1989. It it antithetical to a Cold War mindset to negotiate with an ideological competitor about a key feature of the competition in the first place. Bush does not have a Cold War mindset if he negotiates with North Korea, a member of his self-titled "Axis of Evil," and an alleged proliferator and supporter of international terrorism.

Please re-read my questions about this author's double standard. I do not think the author practices a Soviet-style propaganda. All I did to respond was to read this work. Whatever propaganda baggage other posters bring to this board is their national business.

(Washington Post, Newsweek Global section: Isn't that based on U.S. media? I didn't find propaganda in an American news source that offers highly critical articles (that are poorly reasoned) based in Washington. How can propaganda exist in Washington, if this is not a propaganda piece and is based in Washington. Nonsense.)

I like your clear thinking and exposing the fact that the Cold War has not ended in Washington. How true! Thanks and keep up the good work.

Historically, US has only negotiated from a position of strength and they do not find themselves in that position with regards to Iran so there is no double standard. Bush made a gamble that Iraq will be a cakewalk and Iran will cry uncle after it realizes that it is next. Iran in fact did try to negotiate but US held back for an even stronger hand. However, poor management of the war and the increased oil revenue has strengthened the Iranian hand. Iran will not negotiate now with that it has been cleared from nuclear weaponization efforts. The suckers in Germany and France who could have made billions in economic deals with Iran over the years are kicking themselves for falling for the US line and now are trying to salvage what they can. As for Israel, they only care about taking more land so Iran is a perfect partner in crime for them. They can justify what they are doing because of the Iranian boogieman that supports these evil people who mean them harm so thank you we will take this additional hill as well. Iranian and Israeli interest has always been aligned no matter who rules these countries. No one is wiping anybody from any maps.

As they say, the sun does not stay behind clouds and the piper will get paid.

I cannot think of any thing as strong as the recent NIE report to isolate a world power. Chamberlain's Munich deal with Hitler might rank with the kind of embarrasing situation Mr. Bush is in, with the "Hitler" character being played by the Israeli lobby in USA....ain't that tough?

Interesing to see these posts, mostly from Americans that have been subject to very sovietesque propaganda in their own country.

For years, the American government had pressed Iran to prove a negative. That is absurd, illogical and illegal. NPT is a treaty of disarmament and sets down rules. If Iran was/is interested, it could simply quit NPT and join Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea and develop any kind stuff it wants...for war, peace, weapons, civil electricity, whatever!

The rest of the world has let Iran down. Iran has been, and is still, a shareholder in Framatom--the French nuclear fuel producer. Even when Iran offered foreigners to come and set-up a joint venture for enrichment in Iran, to see for themselves that it is for civilian only, every one turned up their nose and pushed Iran to prove a negative.

As for those that whine about Israel and Ahmadinejad's comments,their thinking is limited to war--like Bush. If the same democratic principles applied to USSR, Czechoslovakia & Yugoslavia are to be applied to Israel proper (that is the ballot box--all Jews and Palestinians in a single referendum), then chances are that Israel will be wiped off the map...peacefully, democratically and concisely!!!

As the writer says, the Cold War has not ended in USA.

To matt:

I think you are correct about some things. I question why the U.S. is pursuing a double standard with non-proliferation when Iran is acting like a proliferator? Why is the U.S. inconsistent because it negotiated with N. Korea in Six Party talks and got an essentially non-proliferation agreement? Shouldn't the standard be non-proliferation and not proliferation and supporting Islamic extremism and terrorism? Shouldn't diplomacy and treaties resolve international problems and not add to proliferation problems and terrorism? Why is it a double standard if the results are positive for world stability?

I am happy to be part of a nation that has a diplomatic double standard of supporting non-proliferation and opposing Islamic extremist terorrism.

The author can support Iran's militaristic "standard" if he wishes.

In principle, I would like to agree with Ali E. here, that a President cannot afford to be ridiculous. However, I have to point out that not only our President Bush, but his President Ahminedajad, Ahimedabad, (I give up!) have made an art form out of being ridiculous.

Doesn't anybody in Iran realize how ridiculous their President looks with his denial of the Holocaust? Doesn't anyone there realize how ridiculous he looks with all his defiant statements against the UN, EU _and_ US, continuing his _useless_ uranium enrichment program?

Then again, perhaps Ali E. does not realize it, because he does not realize how he has made _himself_ look ridiculous by calling sanctions 'naked aggression'.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ali. Outside of Iran and _some_ other Muslim states, _nobody_ believes Iran is pursuing enrichment purely for civilian use. Iran does not need enriched uranium for power generation, but certainly would need it for weapons. Add to that your dear President's statements about wiping Israel off the map, and it becomes pretty clear what your real goal is, no matter what the latest NIE says.

Global diplomacy is about double standards in the 21st century. I argued a similar thing in the "anon." Should the U.S. a single standard and attack North Korea and Iran to be consistent? I'd rather be prudent, not attack every member of the "Axis of Evil."

"Big Bijan:

Good Article.
The poster above must realise that Pakistan is not a NPT member, neither is India and Israel and North Korea quit NPT.

Iran always has the option to withdraw from NPT too and develop weapons. The issue is whether Iran needs to do that or not and whether USA has the right to label Iran as a liar."

The U.S., as a superpower, uses NP treaties to maintain and reduce existing levels of nuclear weapons. If an objective, such as a nuclear reduction, can be sought outside of NP treaties, then why not pursue succesful diplomacy?

I think the poster and the author have revealed the wrong double standard. If the U.S. is committed to non-proliferation, even with non-signatories like North Korea, then why is it that Iran displays a behavior that indicates a proliferatory attitude rather than the behavior of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, like the U.S. advocates? Evidence for that attitude, while not coming from the I.A.E.A., comes from the bombastic statements from the Iranian president and from the concealment attitude of top government officials to nations around the world.

Iran is pursuing a similar strategy that Saddam used to deter an attack from the U.S. and Iran. He did not want a nuclear Iran, the U.S. did not want a nuclear Iran or Iraq, and the U.S. found that one nation, Iraq, did not have the nuclear capability that it tried to claim as a deterrent. It viewed it not as a deterrrent, but as a serious threat.

Now, Iran wants the prospect of developing nuclear power and enriching the fissile materials itself to deter the U.S. from attack, while it continues its support for proxies in the Middle East. I think Iran is waiting until the Bush administration is finished before it changes its diplomacy. I think if it relies too heavily on this faint deterrence it could find itself in a position similar to Iraq.

Until Iran has the capability of deterence, it should be expected to deny the militarism assumed as part of developing a nuclear capability, while claiming that it should have the right as a growing nation to nuclear power. If Iran had a respectable and diplomatic attitude to U.S. allies and to the rules of war, (attacks on civilians, human rights, and Hostage Diplomacy) then perhaps a respectable and diplomatic case could be made for giving modern improvements, such as nuclear energy, to modern Iran.

If we're advocating the right attitude to nukes, and our fellow NPT member, Iran, does not, ("we should have nuclear power and the right to enrich uranium") then why should the U.S. be practicing a double standard, if Iran has the attitude of a proliferator?

And the poster missed or ignored a major point of my posts, both the name and anon. I argued that the author had no evidence that racism is the fundamental reason that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. How does a bad novel and ad hominems about french fries prove that standard?

Bill Ross,

North Korea has been in the business of selling Nuclear know-how to the paying customers for a while now. The list extends from Pakistan to Iran to Libya and recently to Syria. North Koreans are a bankrupt country with urgent need for cash infusion. If the money is right, there is no telling what they will sell to whom next. The danger from Iran in this case is much lower and is limited to the faint possibility that some rogue group inside the country export knowledge or material for monitory profit or ideological stupidity. The government in Iran is not that naive to cause its own demise by acting on its propaganda hype. The real value of a bomb for Iran is in its deterrent capability and bullying ability. A nuclear Iran will have much greater influence in the regional affairs that can lead to direct confrontation with the Saudis which will in turn destabilize the whole region and beyond. Mullahs with their strangle hold on the Iranian people and their backward ideology can cause more harm if they get more powerful, but the comparison with North Korea is not accurate.

Hans Blitz declared the coast "clear" in his inspections in Iraq, but the Israel "cleared the coast" by destroying his huge nuclear program. I've seen the video. Saddaam FOOLED the inspectors. HAHAHAHAHAA!

In fact, he fooled the US into thinking he had WMD (by ignoring 16 UN "slaps on the wrist") in order to convince IRAN not to aggress into his country - which they are doing now with impunity.

YOU THINK that this latest report SETS TO REST any idea of Iranian nuclear weapons problems, but I say that EVEN IF this regime is not in the mood to give their nuclear material to Hezbollah and Hamas (a ridiculously naive position) - what about Khamenai's replacement? He's almost dead, you know. And hot heads abound.

TODAY, Hezbollah is tossing EVERYTHING THEY HAVE into Israel's residential areas... do you REALLY want Iran handing them enriched Uranium?

Remember... Islam has ABSOLUTES:

* absolutely nothing but Shariah law
* absolutely no Jew controlling any land in the Middle East
* NO US troops in Saudi Arabia
* NO FREEEDOM for women, homosexuals, infidels - only bondage and death

ISLAM, it turns out, is ultimately the problem.

North Korea is a nightmare for the people within, but a slightly more contained threat without. The reason that NK gets more negotiation, I'm sure, is that it is Iran that has the more aggressive EXTERNAL agenda: They have declared their intention of destroying Israel, and there is no hiding their prolific support for Iraq murders and Hezbollah. IT IS UNTHINKABLE that Iran have nuclear material to place into the hands of their proxy Hezbollah, or their strategically poised Hamas.
So, no, NK is no picnic, but it doesn't compromise immediate US or Israeli security the way nukes in Iranian/terrorist hands does.

Don't let Ahmadinajab's trim haircut fool you - he's on the same page as Kahmeni, the true ruler of Iran, when it comes to Iran's commitment to the death of Israel, the nuclear supremacy of Iran, and ultimately, the world wide supremacy/theocracy of Islam.

It doesn't take an out-of-date drug store novel to understand the current quandry of the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

I believe that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad for the world, regardless of how slighted some societies may feel because they don't have the bomb. This proliferation is particularly bad when nuclear weapons are placed in the hands of irresponsible and possibly dillusional leaders liked Mr. Ahmadinejad. Yes, he said that he wants to wipe Israel from the map and I for one believe he would like to do just that. He rattles on forever about the Iranian messiah and sees himself as enveloped in an aura and leaving world leaders spellbound when addressing the United Nations (yes, it's on tape).

I believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad makes George Bush look like an intellectual giant possessing great leadership and we all know that he isn't. But unlike the case of Mr. Bush there are no serious controls or consistency in place in dictatorial Iran to put brakes on the use of nuclear bombs in the future. Who knows what the Iranian messiah may want Mr. Ahmadinejad to do next? Bush will be gone in 2009 but the Iranian dictatorship will creak on for who knows how long?

The real power on the Iranian throne Sayyid Ali Khamenei is a secular dictator hiding behind theological trappings who continues to fund violence and discord in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. Will he do less with nuclear weapons? How long will he even be in control in Iran once Bush is gone and the political use of anti-Americanism as an internal political galvanizer is weakened?

Mr. Khamenei might actually have to do something good for Iran then instead of secretly developing nuclear capabilities - say, reducing the gas lines?

Iran and the world don't need nuclear weapons to be a safe and thriving community. They need less repression, more freedom of thought, and real leaders who inspire actions to solve "real" problems.

Purified thinking in plain language. Excellent and thank you.

I agree. Iran could always leave the NPT if it chooses. And I think they should because the IAEA just as the UN weapons program, are infiltratd by spies for America and Israel who would not hesitate to reveal all of Iran's secrets so these two enemies could destroy them.

And that is what America is lacking before its military attacks on Iran: actionabl intel. I see many of the same American bloodthirsty imperialists are arguing the need to taste Iranian blood.

As for Shiveh's first hand experiences in Iran: you appear to have a homeland myopia as many refugees do. As if your former rulers are the worst of all mankind while your new rulers and homeland are the best of all mankind.
America has always been the master of torture, master of killing, master of deceit, betrayal, treachery. And as in any good master, his true potential lies hidden from scrutiny and visible analysis and is only revealed when necessary. America's CIA trained the Shah's SAVAK how to function in torture, domestic spying, repression and so forth. and the SAVAK are the predecessors of the SAVIMA. And for the rest of the Muslim world, between America and Europe, the Muslim regimes gained their skills at repression, oppression, corruption, domestic spying, torture, etc and have their degrees written in english, french, dutch, portuguese, spanish, russian.

That's why I recall the saying of the elder Iraqi shaykh interviewed on the Baghdad street. He said about the ouster of Saddam and the rise of American rule:

the Student has gone and the Master has replaced him.

Good Article.
The poster above must realise that Pakistan is not a NPT member, neither is India and Israel and North Korea quit NPT.

Iran always has the option to withdraw from NPT too and develop weapons. The issue is whether Iran needs to do that or not and whether USA has the right to label Iran as a liar.

If the U.S. has a double-standard regarding nuclear weapons in Islamic countries, and that prejudice is influenced by a 70's novel, (????) then why did the U.S. support Pakistan (and Afghanistan), even when it was pre-nuclear, against Soviet invasion. Why does it continue this strategic support?

Further, why does the U.S. believe in nuclear non-proliferation at all, if by asking developing nations to not develop nuclear weapons, it is being racist? Why have non-proliferation, which includes the reduction of U.S. stockpiles, if you are going to be accused of being a racist or anti-Islamic if you want to stop the growth of the weapon. Why is the U.S. prejudiced against Muslims having the atomic bomb when it pressured North Korea to stop developing the weapon. I'd note that the diplomatic process with N. Korea was respectable under international law, and pressure from other global powers brought an agreement with acceptance from the IAEA.

So why was N. Korea, not Islamic nation, willing to accept such an agreement and not Iran? Or does Iran believe inaccurate things about U.S. foreign policy from their lacking understanding of rules they have no intention of playing by or perhaps bad sources like a 1970's novel?

Thomas

I read my post and I believe a clarification is necessary. The view I described is what I believe is happening in the Middle East. It is not something I prescribe to or approve of. It is just the reality of the situation as I see it. Hopefully time will remedy the situation. A new president in the US and gradual change in Iran’s ruling elite will make the situation bareable.

In real America, intelligence estimates are released to the public. In real Iran, intelligence estimates about activities in Iran and the broader Middle East, especially Iraq, including systematic policies of targeting civilians for maximum political effect, are subverted and minorities and freedoms are repressed.

America may be the home of freedom fries (until France changed presidents to Sakozy, BY A VALID ELECTION, and who does not support Iranian nuclear diplomacy) and the owner of land in Guantanamo (instead of the capturer of British soldiers in international waters, one instance of Iranian hostage diplomacy), but at least the U.S. can change policies to polar opposite objectives because of things like Intelligence Estimates without executing the opposition leadership or branding them heretics or devils.

Do Iranian leaders advocate consuming Great Satan shish kabobs or push Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as better examples of human rights or freedom than Guantanamo prison?

I fail to see how such ad hominems and insults help to show Bush's nuclear double standard. Should this really be the basis for an analysis of global diplomacy?

Dear Doubting Thomas

There is no DOUBT that there is an Iranian nuclear program. Uranium enrichment which they are continuing is the key to arming weapons. The rest is testing a warhead and missiles, they don't have to reinvent the wheel

I suggest you read: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2003.htm

As for a quote of Iranian intent in 2001 by former President Rafsanjani: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

You do make a point that a few bombs might limit our "invasion" options but that would not make sense for US to treat Iran with 'double standard' as that's a problem with North Korea, Pakistan, India, etc.

Doubting Thomas

As an Iranian born, my knowledge of the mullahs is first hand. Khomeini who let the revolution, had a pan Islamic ideology and lacked any nationalistic preference. His students that are running the country now would readily sacrifice Iranian interests for a presumed greater Islamic benefit. Furthermore the ruling mullahs have shown the ability to kill shamelessly when their survival depends on it. There is no boundary they won’t cross, no atrocity they won’t commit in order to stay in power.

Now about my comment:

Dr. Ettefagh’s reference to the Non Proliferation Treaty while he knows that Iran was the first party who broke it constitutes a double-standard that I couldn’t agree with. The different parties in the current conflict in the Middle East are not adhering to the established International regulations. From America’s unlawful attack on Iraq to Israeli assault in Lebanon to the mullahs braking of the NPT, they are all acting with disregard for such regulations. In the absence of such adherence, the law of jungle, the right of the powerful is all that we are left with. Self preservation becomes the only justification for ones actions. It does not matter anymore that I’m not following the path of righteousness, all that matters is that your path can harm me and I must stop you.

By this logic, I am suggesting that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the West's desire to stop it can not get sort out using the International norms. It is not who is right, no one is. It is only the matter of who can push harder and further that will decide this conflict.

Shiveh,

I was nodding along until I got to:

"The fact of the matter is that Iran’s mullahs can not be trusted to behave responsibly and the forces that anticipate being harmed by it will try to stop Iran from becoming more powerful. The fact that these forces themselves do not act responsibly is beyond the point."

What is the source of your knowledge about the mullahs of Iran? Is it possible they are responsible about pursuing their own national interests, but appear unreasonable from the perspective of other nations? Why is the irresponsibility of only one party a concern? Are you not setting up just the kind of double-standard the author challenges? You seem to argue that a double-standard is a pragmatic necessity - convince me. Particularly where George W Bush's gut feelings are part of the equation.

Posted on December 10, 2007 16:18

Robert of Los Angeles:

"Iran even before Ahmadenijad noted its program was directed against Israel"

What program? The nuclear program it kept secret? ('We don't have a program, and its going to be used against Isreal') Please, show me the citation!

And the question is not whether you think a nuclear deterent against the US is absurd, it is what the Iranians think. Since brother Shiveh assures us that the mullahs are unreasonable, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch for them. Or are you saying that the mullahs are reasonable? How many nuclear-armed nations has the US invaded in all it's small wars since WWII? Could Iran have been seeking not absolute deterence, but the ability to to raise the risks of invasion sufficiently to make it less likely?

So many questions and uncertainties! Is it my poor mind or my weak faith, that compells me to ask "Show me, lord", while my brothers are so certain in their belief?

Since it so applies here too, I repost my response to Mustafa Dominic and add on to it.
The basic premise that he presents is wrong. Deterrent against America, absurd - when between the US and Russia there are 97% of nukes.

The real reason for Iran's program is and always will be Israel. And Israel, not so secretly a nuke power, has no option but to think ANY Iranian program is an EXISTENTIAL threat, and therefore the US has no option but to guarantee that does not happen. One nuclear bomb, or even its threat, can ruin everyone's day.

Israel is also the reason that there is this so called double standard.

Who does North Korea threaten? It's not after South Korea, Kim Jung Il might want to reunite with it on his terms, but not as a smoking ruin. Japan maybe, but for Kim with insufficient resources for missiles and material, he may not be able to do much better than the duds. But Iran is a different matter.

And its not really a Muslim slur as Pakistan is a card carrying nuke power with half hearted Western sanctions after the fact that got pulled after 9/11.

Iran even before Ahmadenijad noted its program was directed against Israel. But Mahmoud's apocalyptic Mein Kampf statements leave no doubts.

“Iran stopped her nuclear weapons program” means that Iran had such a program to begin with. This is contrary to NPT provisions that Iran is obligated to comply with. So how can Iran demand the enforcement of a treaty that she was the first to disregard?

Dr. Ettefagh uses the America’s short-comings in complying with the international laws and her evident double standards on variety of policy matters to discredit concerns about Iran’s aggressive intentions in the region. But two wrongs those not make it right.

Disregard for universal norms by all parties involved has moved the confrontation outside the boundaries of accepted international behavior. In such an arena Dr. Ettefagh’s reasoning becomes invalid. The fact of the matter is that Iran’s mullahs can not be trusted to behave responsibly and the forces that anticipate being harmed by it will try to stop Iran from becoming more powerful. The fact that these forces themselves do not act responsibly is beyond the point. By disregarding the international treaties and civilized behavior, players in this conflict have accepted to play with the only rule that remains and that is the rule of jungle. It is ironic that in this situation still the only force that could stop Iran from being bombed to ruins was American Democracy!

BEAUTIFUL ARTICLE! More tomorrow; I need to digest it, but always respect Dr. Ettafagha.