Well we gave Israel the Nukes, and now Iran wants Nukes and I cannot for the life of me blame them, even though I do not agree with them, Nukes are now a right in this world unless your a Muslim state.

‘Getting tough’ isn’t a policy; it’s a slogan

And how hollow those words will seem when the forces of the Western democracies lay their mighty, multimillion dollar smackdown on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, plus any large numbers of stray civilians that happen to be passing by at the time!

Let’s not forget that, in merely the last ten years, Britain, the US and/or Israel have between them bombed the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank, not to mention bombing and invading Lebanon and occupying Iran’s neighbours Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe we even declared war on a couple of them before doing so.

Rest assured that, should push come to shove, the peace-loving democracies will have what it takes to deal with the insane, uncontrolled belligerence and aggression of the Iranians. If the Iranians, in their madness, grab our massive military assault as their cue to launch a totally unprovoked wider war, then so be it – they haven’t invaded anyone for centuries, so we’ll obviously settle their hash without any bother. We do not seek to impose our will on other peoples, except when we’re bombing, strafing, occupying and jailing them en masse, but we will act when forced to do so.

Personally, I think as soon as you ask “What can be done about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?” you’ve made a mistake.

‘Critics of the current policy towards Iran are entirely free to characterise the Obama administration’s position as being one of quivering vacillation if that’s what they truly perceive.’

You say that like quivering vacillation is a bad thing. Considering where alleged ‘certainty’ got us in Iraq it might be the lesser of several evils.

Let them do what they want, and keep an eye on them. If it turns out they’re creating nuclear weapons then deal with that problem when it starts to surface.

This could conceivably stop Tehran’s ambitions once and for all,

I don’t really see how, short of actually destroying Iran as a functioning society, near-literally ‘bombing them back to the stone age’. Building a bomb is an engineering project – the only way to permanently stop it would be to kill the engineers. And then bomb the universities to stop them training any new ones, then bomb the sources of wealth creation to stop them building new universities, then…

Which, apart from anything else, would obviously mark whoever did it as a genuine rogue state, dissolve NATO and maybe set up a EU-China alliance to attempt to contain the threat.

In a situation where there really is no ruthless but clever plan that has any chance of making things better, you kind of have to fall back on doing the right thing and hoping it works out, then at least if it doesn’t you can claim it wasn’t your fault..

MM – excellent, hehe

What do we do with a problem like Maria?

What can be done about nuclear nations (acknowledged and secret who do not sign the NPT or have inspections) controlling others and implying they are after weapons as a rationale for their own geopolitical strategies to maintain sphere of influence, controlling enrichment capabilities and the nuclear fuel market…and those who fall for this narrative. It’s all very ‘white man’s burden’ this Iran ‘problem’.

The Berman sanctions bill passed the House in the US was hailed by neocons (who think it will make the protest movement blame their govt as they freeze, but their real aim is a weakened destabilised nation that does not affect regional hegemony of Israel and US clients, not remotely invested in human rights as the ‘tough’ talkers pretend) yet the State dept wasn’t totally keen on the timing. If you are thinking the Obama administration are to be supported uncritically and are the good faith limit of discourse (nevermind soft or tough soundbite language) you really need to ask what is Dennis Ross doing as special adviser being as he views negotiations as a PR exercise to make an attack palatable. Pressure should be applied to the Obama administration to not give in to the hawks and the Israel lobby, simply supporting him does not give him the countervailing pressure to fight the pro-attack factions (assuming he has any appetite for a peaceful diplomatic relationship, which given the role of Iran in both Iraq and Afghanistan they probably need so as not to contribute to the conflicts while they maintain their occupations, any attack on Iran will see a response in all those areas and the OPT and probably beyond, war makes war there is no issue of self defence here even with nukes Iranians understand MAD and it is racist to think they don’t). Backing Obama will, like the healthcare debacle, just leave you with the prospect of an even more conservative outcome than you at first imagined.

“Nukes are now a right in this world unless your a Muslim state.”

Well seeing as the Iranian President wants to wipe Israel off the map I don’t think they should be allowed them.

“There are, as far as I can see, three ways the West can deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

And how, apart from acquiring a sufficient deterrent, would you suggest that Iran should deal with the US and its nuclear-armed proxy Israel, given that the US considers itself at liberty to attack any state it pleases, irrespective of the UN Charter, and that the craven gang of US stooges which includes the EU allows Israel to attack neighbouring populations with impunity?

Well, let’s be clear that any country that doesn’t presently have nuclear weapons aquiring them is a very, very bad thing indeed, whether it’s Iran or New Zealand. The fewer people who have nuclear warheads, the better.

That goes double for the Iranians who a) are ruled by insane priests and b) live in one of the world’s key military flashpoints.

For fairness, I’m the same person as Malky earlier – one login is an comedy persona, the other is just an insufferable arse. You can take a guess which is closer to reality.

An comedy persona?

@ FlyingRodent: “Well, let’s be clear that [for] any country that doesn’t presently have nuclear weapons, aquiring them is a very, very bad thing indeed”

- except of course that there are no examples of nuclear-armed states being invaded by other nuclear-armed states. So maybe not such a bad thing after all.

“The fewer people who have nuclear warheads, the better.”

That’s certainly true if few equates to zero. Otherwise, if some states (and in real terms we’re mainly talking about the US and its allies here) are permitted to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely while others have none, don’t be surprised by state-sponsored acts of aggression.

What about the Sunni States in the GCC ; they can hardly be keen on Iran aquiring nuclear weapons? Iran has claimed UAE and Qatar territory. Saudi Arabia could buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan in order to protect themselves fom Iran. Many of the Shias in Iraq have been killed by Salaafis. The conflict in Iraq has been fought by the proxis of Iran and Saudi Arabia . There is possibilty of a nuclear conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran . If this happens the price of oil goes through the roof and we face an economic depression far worse than the Great Depression.

*The problem with this is that you’ve got to get China and Russia to play along*
it is very complecated situation. the intantion of chine is not very clear for me but what about russia-they are interested to extend their influence on middle east so they will have double game supporting Iran and Israel and pressing them at the same time.