Considering that Pakistan, India and Russia close neighbors of Iran have nuclear capabilities that could destroy Iran, it is somewhat ridiculous to use Israel as the justification for Iran's quest for nuclear capabilities.

As to the reason Iran has not invade other countries it may be due to the fact that both economically and militarily it does not have the muscle to do so.

Most of the chest beating enamating from Iran's regime is based on false bravado that is well recieved by many in the region and elsewhere, including this country that would just love for Iran to wipe Israel from the map, an action that will not occur with or without nuclear weapons. Should the Iranian regime pursue such a course the nuclear fallout over their country will make both the regime and the country irrelevant.

While all the anti-Israelis and anti-Zionists may believe that the spewing of all their hatred will lead to the fullfillment of their dream to destroy Israel, it will take more than an economically strapped country such as Iran to achieve that aim.

Mr Kuttab:

You are absolutely right.

What's more important is that all Muslims in the world are very aware of this double standards.

Iran has proven to be a nation that doesn't invade other nations.

It was the United States government that brought down an elected Iranian government in the 50s though a CIA coup. This happened when most Iranians knew little of what America was.

Oil is only going to become a highly valuable resource in the coming decades.

Arab nations and Iran must protect their oil resources before it is too late.

Imperialist US policy makers are not willing to share the planet resources in a fair manner. Unless they change their attitude, Iran and others must do what they can to protect their assets from aggression.

Randy,

Your claim that Iran might use nuclear weapons against Israel is dishonest and irresponsible.

You should take a good look at the map of that region.

Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect itself from US imperialism.

All Arab nations should do the same.

Israel is in violation of 66 UN resolutions and in violation of the basic rights of over 3 million native Palestinians who are forced to live under a military occupation.

Can anyone seriously doubt that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has been a force for stability in the region? The idea that we are going to arbitrarily work to disarm Israel's most effective detterent to attack is irrational. In the name of "balance," we would effectively INCREASE the likelihood of regional conflict. In fact, in the event that Iran does produce nuclear weapons, the Israeli nuclear deterrent may well be the ONLY thing that keeps Iran from using those weapons.

Iranian president never said he want to wipe out state of Israel. He is against all racism philosophies like Zionism. This has nothing to do with Jewish religious or Israelis. Zionists regime in Israel is based on racial segregation. It has many similarities with South Africa in the apartheid era, the United State during the slavery era (through 1865), and the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s.
If Israel regime removes all the racial (Zionism) laws, stop the Arab Holocaust, free Arabs from their concentration camps (Gaze and West bank), and let all Palestinian go back to their homes, they will be able to live in peace with its neighbors.
Apartheid, slavery, and Nazism are all history but South Africa, US, and Germany are still there supporting their people of all races and religious.
Iranian President had said on Saturday that Iran's nuclear programs were no threat against any country, 'not even against the Zionist regime (Israel).' 'We will principally not be the initiator of any military offensive against any country and nuclear weapons have no place in our military doctrine,'.

I for one would like to see Iran acquire a nuclear bomb. Then Israel would think twice before acting like savages and bullying its neighbors.

29 countries supported Saddam with money, weaponry and intelligence during the Iran Iraq war. 6 of those countries are the same P5+1 countries that we see today. Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on both Iranians and his own people while the UN and the rest of the world turned a blind eye. Iranians don't trust the world anymore, especially if "all options are still on the table".
Pakistan has nukes, Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan's not doing too well and US military forces cover all surrounding land including Persian Gulf. Iranian government would have to be on drugs not to develop nuclear bombs. Oh ... one minor point! Peace in the mid-East starts by disarming Israel of its' nuclear bombs.

One would have thought that the Washington Post might have possibly asked an Israeli to respond to the remarks of the Iranian minister as after all it is Israelis who have been most directly threatened by Iran.
But then again the 'Washington Post' itself does not seem to understand the danger of a nuclear Iran, and the importance of stopping it before it gets there.

Kuttab never misses an opportunity to bash Israel.
On this one he is however so absurd, and self- defeating that his dishonesty makes his response laughable.
Iran threatens to wipe out Israel. Nuclear weapons are the 'means' To do so it would also have to wipe out the couple of million Palestinian Arabs within greater land of Israel.
'Hizbollah' showed again how 'sensitive ' to Arab lives radical Islamic people can be. Half of the civilian casualties in their missile attacks on Northern Israel were Arabs. That didn't stop them, any more than it has stopped Palestinian suicide bombers who have often killed Arabs as well as Jews. The Iranians in their effort to destroy Israel will kill a couple of million Arabs . The former President Raftsanjani even contemplated losing millions in a nuclear exchange with Israel and nonetheless surviving and proclaiming victory.
Insane suicidal hate- filled fanatic regimes should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

In response to J. Cameron comment "A nuclear Iran would very likely initiate an arms race in the Middle East and create a source of tremendous regional instability that could easily escalate. The goal is to eliminate these weapons, not allow them to proliferate". I have to say WAKE UP and OPEN your eyes to the REALITY of Middle East. The arm race in Middle East started about 50 years ago or about 1967 when Israel occupied Arabs lands and aggressively pursued ethnic cleansing of Arabs (including Palestinians) up to Right now. Can you explain why Israel which is geographically as big as New Jersey have the FOURTH largest military stockpile in the world? I call this arm race.
I wonder if Israel would have considered attacking Lebanon if Lebanese army was strong or had deterrent nuclear weapons and could defend itself. As long as Israel has not learned to live in peace in the region with its neighbors, the countries in Middle East (as well as Iran, a Persian nation) need to be militarily strong enough to defend themselves and not become victim of Israelis aggression as it just happened to Lebanon.

"Okay, but I think what Mr. Kuttab is saying that why don't we treat Pakistan or India the same way?"
"The Israelis have never been disclosed officially the status of the nukes. They should be treated the same as Iran."
Israel, Pakistan, and India never signed the NPT. There's no legal obligation on them to abide by its rules. Iran is a signatory, and it violated its treaty obligations by maintaining its program in secret for 2 decades. Since Iran cheated, the IAEA is demanding a couple simple, reasonable consequences. First, Iran must provide additional transparency. Second, the IAEA is not denying Iran civilian nuclear energy, but insisting that production come from outside its borders. If the energy itself is insufficient to meet Iran's demands then what could Iran be seeking...? If Iran gets away with this egregious, flagrant violation while threatening the existence of other UN member states, then NPT is dead and useless, not just in the Mideast but across the globe.

On April 26, 2006 Iran's supreme religious leader Khamenei stated:

"The Iranian nation and government advocate world peace and security and will never attack anyone in the future..."

According to the translation by Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.

Iran's official position, which has not changed since the beginning of the revolution is that there are over 3 million Palestinians living as refugees outside Palestine. They should have the right to come back and along with the Jewish people participate in a referendum that will determine the future structure of a fair, equitable, non-racist, non-apartheid non-colonial government in Palestine.

And Charles Krauthammer? What of his vitriolic hate. Should he receive a forum?

Mr. Kuttab obviously lives in the fairy land of covert Islamist supremacy, denial of the utter failure of the Islamic society, utter denial of intolerance of those who don't "goose step" to his warped beliefs. His lead statement "Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy is as much her right as that of any other country in the region." is indicative of his and his cohorts denial of the the plain and simple intention of Islamist's to destory western civilization and Christain (in other words non-Islamist) religions. Using his warped logic, let's get it over with and destroy all of these Islamist tribes/uncivilized tribes.
We have seen this before during the 1930's. History does repeat itself but providing sympathizers such as Mr. Kuttab with a forum to spew his trash is simply reprehensible for any responsible publication, unless of course you agree with the principals of such folly.

"Israel simply wants to be able to live in peace with its neighbors"

Though I keep seeing this quoted, I have yet to see ONE Israeli action that lends it any creedence. To live in Peace implies keeping the peace, not by giving people the peace of the grave.

"Iran's leaders have made no secret of their goal to eliminate the State of Israel. Israel's leaders have made no similar statements concerning any Arab/Islamic countries"
No, Just about the peoples themselves. See Golda Meirs statement about Palestinians.

"Iran has no threat that requires it to obtain nuclear weapons to defend itself." Have you been listening to ANYTHING the government of the United States has said? If so, you know what they have to protect themselves from.

Blah, Blah Blah. Heard it all before, don't beleive a word of it.

Iran's leaders have made no secret of their goal to eliminate the State of Israel. Israel's leaders have made no similar statements concerning any Arab/Islamic countries. Israel is surrounded by countries that want it to become extinct. Israel has conventional and nuclear weapons to defend itself from such extinction. Iran has no threat that requires it to obtain nuclear weapons to defend itself. Its only need for such weapons is to deter others from attacking them in their continued surrogate war against Israel. Israel simply wants to be able to live in peace with its neighbors. Iran has done all that it can to make sure that Israel can never live in peace. If we don't deal harshly with Iran sometime in the near future, the whole world will suffer harsh consequences.

Daoud Kattub's premise is correct. The Israelis have never been disclosed officially the status of the nukes. They should be treated the same as Iran. It is silly to think this is ONLY about the UN IAEA's citations against Iran. The IAEA has undoubtedly given up on Israel, and even if they haven't, it's silly to believe that with the United States jamming it's own agenda down the U.N.'s throat, the U.N. can just blithely ignore the U.S. demands.
I think ALL nuclear weapons should be banned ... most definitely WE should continue to reduce our number, which is still more than enough to destroy the Planet ... folks forget how this situation looks from the eyes of Iran, or North Korea, or Pakistan. They are undoubtedly paranoid, and the only way to really lessen that paranoia is to talk.
As if the U.S. has never held it's nuclear arsenal over some other nation's head! Come on! We out ran the Soviet Union, and yes, thankfully, we had MAD.
The United States should talk with all these parties. Iran, Lebanon, Hamas, HIzbullah ... talking will open channels that might defuse this stalemate.
For those who want to march like lemmings down the path towards more Bush-Cheney-Bolton confrontations ... I'd say, please, get up now, if you'e between the ages of 18 -40, and enlist, either in the U.S. Army or the Marine Corps. Time's a wasting.
I also ask Democrat leaders to stand up and declare that the cummulative picture that has emerged from our war in Afghanistan and Iraq is this: the conventional military is not well. Whether it's broken or "severely stressed," it is, nonetheless, "stressed." The rafters are rotting and some have begun to fail. Dems should also state, clearly, that they will not allow the United States military reach a point where a Draft is the only way to continue on.
Americans who want endless war, in other words, Bushistas, must care more about Imperialism and Superpower status than the well-being of their country.
It only seems fair to me that those who want a confrontation with North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah ... should get up and enlist.
I did my time in Vietnam, as an infantryman. A volunteer. I got a first hand look at the human effects of war ... and those who talk tough from home haven't a clue how offensive their behavior is when they egg politicians on, and aren't even remotely committed enough to their foreign policy applications to enlist and fight themselves.
The world simply does not need another war. The U.S. cannot handle another war.
Daoud Kattub is right: we need to negotiate with Iran. If we talked, there might be some real benefits downstream. We must talk with all of these blacklisted nations and groups if we are ever to find some parity and safety from the war on terrorism.

Well said Paul. You need two hands to clap... or so the saying goes.

With respect to Iran pursuing its nuclear program in secret for eighteen years, could that not have been a result of the Israeli strike on the Iraqi facility? Iraq, at the time, was arguably a U.S ally, and the facility in question was constructed with French assistance I believe, yet that did not stop Israel from destroying it. Iran, facing hostility from both the super power of the world and Israel (already having demonstrated its desire to preemptively strike strategic facilities in countries it considered hostile), had every reason to believe that a declared nuclear program, even for peaceful purposes, would be a likely target for the U.S and Israel.

"I suspect if we had a more moderate government in Iran we wouldn't be having these discussions"

And I suspect if the US and Israel had a more moderate govt. we wouldn't be having these discussions either.

"The IAEA has prepared reports that raise very serious questions regarding the Iran nuclear activity, and the UN Security Council has issued resolutions calling for a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment program."

Okay, but I think what Mr. Kuttab is saying that why don't we treat Pakistan or India the same way?

Personally I think the genie is already out of the bottle. The best thing we can do is to create united and firm international agreement to assure these weapons won't be used. The technology is readily available to anyone with an internet account. The only question is money. And as labor costs continue to be shifted over to such countries, they'll get the funds necessary to purchase the ingredients. It's only a matter of time.

That said, I don't trust Iran. I would like to see an agreement hammered into place. I suspect if we had a more moderate government in Iran we wouldn't be having these discussions.

"A nuclear Iran would very likely initiate an arms race in the Middle East and create a source of tremendous regional instability that could easily escalate. The goal is to eliminate these weapons, not allow them to proliferate."

Iran is playing catchup in the arms race started by the cold war super powers.

The fact that Israel had nukes long time ago, and that the US and Russia are not willing to reduce their stockpile makes Iran's stance look legit - they didn't start the arms race, and the countries that did won't quit and some of them are threatening Iran from illegally occupied neighbouring countries, Iraq and Afganistan.

All this BS about Iran's leader being a religious apocalyptic nutter is propaganda intended to deflect the same accusations against Bush, and to de-humanise the "enemy". You can turn most of these accusations around the other way and they still hold.

Despite Iranian protestations to the contrary, Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in perhaps the next 5 years. The only thing that can disuade it from developing one is a clear, unequivocal statement from the Bush Administration that it will not plot to overthrow the Iranian government using its secret agencies.

The Bush Administration will not provide these guarantees as its policy remains to destabilize and overthrow the current Iranian regime.

I leave it for others to judge whether it is in US economic or political interest to spend so much capital to attempt to secure a position that is almost certain to fail, given that even a nuclear Iran presents a negligible threat to the United States.

The real threat to this nation,in my view, is China and its growing economic and military muscle. The Chinese possess almost one trillion (yes trillion) dollars in US dollar holding, built largely in the last 6 years while this administration has focussed on ill-judged misadventures that have cost this nation much in blood and treasure. Not far behind is a resurrected Russia which has seen its economic and political fortunes rise with the rise in oil and gas prices. The rise in energy prices is in no small measure the result of this administration's policies in the mid-east.

"Nor, having itself relief on a nuclear arsenal for half a century, should the U.S. be surprised that a rising power flanked by Israel, Pakistan, and India -- all with nuclear weapons -- should want to acquire nuclear power itself, both for symbolic and for strategic reasons. If the United States wants a world without nuclear weapons, then let it honor its commitments under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and dismantle its nuclear arsenal."

Again, this misses the point. Certainly the US has created a mess in Iraq and alienated allies and non-allies alike. Of course it has nuclear weapons, along with Russia and China and France and half a dozen other countries. And these countries won't dispose of these weapons anytime soon despite the goals of the NPT (and that's all these are).

But this is not an argument for allowing the rest of the world to arm, which is envitably where these "fairness" arguments lead. Using this reasoning North Korea should not only have nuclear weapons (which it already has), but the delivery systems to reach around the world. Yet no sane person is advocating this simply because others already have these systems.

A nuclear Iran would very likely initiate an arms race in the Middle East and create a source of tremendous regional instability that could easily escalate. The goal is to eliminate these weapons, not allow them to proliferate.

"The US and many other nuclear powers are also in violation of the NPT by not reducing their stockpiles as required by the NPT."

The NPT only stipulates that the parties to the NPT "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." There is no clear guideline for the timeline and extent of reductions. That said, both Russia and the US have reduced their stockpiles over the years. Moreover, no party to the NPT has been found in violation of this section of the NPT (Article VI).

"The US in fact is or is considering creating and testing new nuclear weapons - a clear violation of the NPT"

What article of the treaty is this?

J. Cameron's idea that this is not a question of fair play is itself nonsensical. The United States has pushed hardest for a confontation with Iran. This cannot be denied. The United States has also refused to recognize the government of Iran since 1979. One can talk about the IAEA and the U.N. as if these are not strongly influenced by U.S. policy, but that is naive. The confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs is not a matter of the clear, straightforward implementation of international law and agreements. It is about the U.S. struggle to maintain its own and Israel's dominance in the region. But having devastated Iraq (the major counterbalancing force to Iran in the past) the U.S. should not be dismayed at Iran's new assertiveness. Nor, having itself relief on a nuclear arsenal for half a century, should the U.S. be surprised that a rising power flanked by Israel, Pakistan, and India -- all with nuclear weapons -- should want to acquire nuclear power itself, both for symbolic and for strategic reasons. If the United States wants a world without nuclear weapons, then let it honor its commitments under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Only then will it have the right to press other non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons. In the absence of such nuclear disarmament, U.S. policy on Iranian nuclear programs is utter hypocrisy. It is an attempt to maintain an unbalance of power in which some countries are the shepherds and others the flock. But the balance of world power is shifting -- especially in the Middle East. And the U.S. is unlikely to have its way there for much longer.

Well said....unfortunately America does not apply it's internal value externally. This is why so people want to move and live in US but at the same time condemn it's foreign policy. The fact remains, laws should be applied in spite of race or religion for them to be valid and respected. The partial treatment of Israel by US will only weakens US' soft power and it's moral and ideological influence in the global world.
This isolation by US will only open the doors to China or the European union to become the next global power.

The US and many other nuclear powers are also in violation of the NPT by not reducing their stockpiles as required by the NPT. The US in fact is or is considering creating and testing new nuclear weapons - a clear violation of the NPT. So when the West uses this "violation" argument, they're hypocrites.

As far as a clean bill of health from the IAEA, Japan hasn't received one after 27 years of inspections.

"The U.S. cannot honestly press Iran to halt its development of nuclear power while turning a blind eye to Israel's reported stockpile of more than 200 nuclear weapons, giving its defacto blessings to India, and grudgingly accepting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal."

Again, this is a misunderstanding of what is taking place. This is not the US vs. Iran, as some would like to see it. The IAEA has prepared reports that raise very serious questions regarding the Iran nuclear activity, and the UN Security Council has issued resolutions calling for a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment program. This simple notion that the current standoff is about fair play is nonsensical and it ignores the history of this issue.

I agree with Daoud Kuttab. The U.S. cannot honestly press Iran to halt its development of nuclear power while turning a blind eye to Israel's reported stockpile of more than 200 nuclear weapons, giving its defacto blessings to India, and grudgingly accepting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The Non-proliferation Treaty, moreover, committed the then-existing nuclear powers to work in good faith toward dismantling their own nuclear arsenals -- no U.S. government has seriously considered abiding by this provision of the treaty.

Iran does have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear research BUT to allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb would be a colossal mistake. First of all it is a signatory to the NPT. Secondly, the barrage of bellicose statements coming out of Iran should not be taken lightly.

Take the example of Pakistan, the nefarious owner of the only 'Islamic bomb' (this term was used by the ex PM Bhutto). Pakistan got the bomb from China when the US was unbothered because it needed Pak to help terrorize the Russians in Afghanistan. And China obliged Pak with a bomb in exchange for eternal subservience. The excuse was regional balance vis-a-vis India, a nation that has never been an aggressor in its history (all wars with Pakistan were initiated by Pak). First of all, that is the biggest cockamamy there is. Regional balance comes if India is as strong as China -- Pakistan, a rogue nation is irrelevant in this equation. Now look at what Pakistan does with their Islamic bomb. For the last twenty years India has been a hostage to nuclear blackmail. They have openly sponsored terrorism in India because they know that India is unlikely to declare war with them because of the fear of it escalating into a nuclear war. Musharraf even attacked India in 1999 (Kargil) hiding under the nuclear skirt. During that time, his generals threatened India with nuclear attack several times.

Iran should not have the bomb because even if they do not attack Israel for the fear of MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction), they can make life hell for Israel; Infact, all nuclear facilities of Pakistan, in light of AQ Khan proliferation, should be put under IAEA watch. Having said that, I still believe that as of now diplomacy is the best way to achieve this with Iran. Sanctions can wait, and war should be the absolute last option, if at all.

"Moral relativism? What are you talking about? Daoud Kuttab is dead on. We can't create a non-proliferation treaty and then threaten Iran when it abides by the treaty."

Actually, this is getting your facts wrong. The UN's IAEA considers Iran in breach of the NPT, because of its failure to disclose its nuclear activities. The UN Security Council has demanded a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment activity, of course, so this issue is of concern to many countries.

In a report released May 1, 2006, the IAEA wrote:

"Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active cooperation by Iran - transparency that goes beyond the measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol - if the Agency is to be able to understand fully the twenty years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran."

I suggest you take the time to read the full IAEA report.

j. cameron

Plus, you sound ignorant when you use the term "islamofascist". I hate that term. What exactly does it mean?

Moral relativism? What are you talking about? Daoud Kuttab is dead on. We can't create a non-proliferation treaty and then threaten Iran when it abides by the treaty. That's moral relativism. To avoid moral relativism we need to apply the same standards to everybody, regardless of their race, color, or creed. After all, Iran hasn't been the one launching pre-emptive strikes in the region, or bombing out civilian roads, homes, and airstrips in a 34 day seige of a neighboring democracy.

Of course there are problems with Iran. Everybody recognizes that. A lot of Iranians recognize that!!! But that is no reason to demonize them and apply stricter standards to them than we apply to any other country. As long as they abide by the law, we need to engage them in the context of that law.

Lets be realistic, the Americans will never use a yard stick against the 52nd state. We humans are innately aggresive. Regardless of any solutions that we might see in place, another confrontation will arise elsewhere. History repeats itself and we would stupid to ignore that fact. In my opinion the U.S is simply in the stage of hegemonic decline and the next superpower will likely be the SCO. Although, it wont be a smooth peaceful transition, but rather a devastating, brutal, and quite frankly pathetic confrontation btw the east and the west. May the almighty have mercy on our kind.

"Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy is as much her right as that of any other country in the region."

Wow. Talk about moral relativism. I have news for you Daoud Kuttab: Iran is an Islamofascist regime with an apocalyptic worldview. They are not "equal" to other - democratic - regimes in the world anymore than the Nazis were "equal" to other political parties or Stalin was "equal" to his contemporaries.