What is the problem? Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was initiated by Ireland, and came into effect in 1968. There are , according to Wikipedia, three pillars to the NPT. The first is the right of five existing nuclear powers to own nuclear weapons. The second pillar is the injunction to reduce nuclear stockpiles and disarm. The third pillar is the right of signatory nations to pursue a peaceful atomic energy programme, including enriching uranium for this purpose. It is the third pillar of the treaty that Iran, as a signatory, is legally allowed an atomic energy industry. The concern though is that Iran, in pursuing a peaceful nuclear programme, could relatively easily use its enrichment technology to make a bomb. This is what is presently causing concern in the US, the UK, and other countries. But Iran correctly insists that under the treaty it is perfectly entitled to develop a peaceful nuclear power programme, including uranium enrichment. Iran indeed has its own uranium supplies.
The present nuclear powers are the US, UK, France, Russia and China, all countries which had nuclear weapons prior to 1968, and three further countries, all non-signatories of the NPT, who have subsequently developed nuclear weapons, these are Pakistan, India and Israel (Israel has never admitted its nuclear weapons capability, but it is now widely accepted that it may possess up to 200 warheads). Additionally, North Korea may have nuclear weapons.Iran has been labelled by President Bush, as one of the countries in the "Axis of Evil" (the others are Iraq and North Korea). John Bolton, now American Ambassador to the United Nations, later added Cuba, Syria and Libya.
As part of the continuation of an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy since WW2, the US has pursued non-legal means to advance its interests, and has been continuously at war, or sponsoring war or overthrows of legitimately elected governments, or otherwise clandestinely interfering with sovereign states, almost all this time. States involved include Chile, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Haiti, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Yugoslavia and others. With the election of George W Bush, and his team, this reactionary policy, as advanced for instance by the Project for the New American Century, has become more extreme. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, can be seen as only the first step in a push for global hegemony. There is an uncomfortable and worrying collusion between extreme right-wing policies, a moral absolutism, anti-socialism, nationalism, militarism, the contempt for minorities and the dispossessed, cronyism, the corporate state and the mainstream media in the US that by any reasonable definition can be considered fascism. The only, but important, thing missing from this is the single party state. Though even here, the craven impotence of the Democrats has meant that effective opposition has been minimal, another characteristic of the fascist state.
So when we see that George Bush, still embroiled in the increasingly horrible mess that is Iraq, has now turned his attention on Iran, we have to take the threat of illegal, military action against Iran extremely seriously. In a sense we should consider America as a serial offender. When a country threatens Afghanistan, and then invades, threatens Iraq and then invades, we have to think that when it threatens Iran, it means to take action. In November this year come the Congressional elections. President Bush's popularity is at an all time low. The attack on Iran will likely be timed in the immediate run up to this election, so as to have the maximum effect, before doubts and debate can be exercised. Expect it a few weeks before the elections. If the Bush administration cannot get a suitably worded statement from the UN or the security council that might give a modicum of legitimacy to this action, be prepared to see some dastardly terrorist or war-like action from Iran that will justify American bombing, the easiest to arrange would be some spectacular Iranian interference in the Iraqi field of conflict, or possibly in America itself. An oil crisis and unrest in America might then be a good excuse for the invocation of the Patriot Act and a state of emergency, and America's transformation from a proto-fascist democracy to a fully fledged fascist dictatorship might not be far off. (As I write this, I am thinking to myself, come off it, John! But is such an event really impossible? See this Link.) If events in Iraq substantially worsen from what they are now, and Bush needs a diversion, then this attack could come sooner. I should add here that most of this article was written before the publication of the Hersh article in The New Yorker. Now the matter is in the open and subject to public debate, it is possible that Bush will strike much sooner than I have suggested. Wasn't it Macbeth, a rather more believable role model for Bush than Churchill, who said "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"?
And yet the Bush and Neo-Con policy is totally absurd. Empires don't fall because they don't project power over others, in fact, it is the reverse, they fail from overstepping their own capabilities and even more so from their own internal contradictions. Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons, wars in Iraq, bases over the whole world, anti-missile defences, contracts for your pals, corporate welfare, tax reductions for the rich, and not spent on the things that really matter, like poverty, health, housing, public transport, pensions, environment, is another nail in the coffin of a functioning American society. I made a similar point over three years ago, when America was planning the invasion of Iraq. No society, however wealthy, can haemorrhage this sort of capital and not escape the consequences. And America is not wealthy, it is an economic basket-case with public debts of 8 trillion dollars, of which 4 trillion is held overseas. (Link) (Though I could point out here this overseas debt is substantially less then New Zealand's as a proportion of GDP. But the world economy wouldn't crumble if NZ reneged on its repayments, but it certainly would if the U.S. did. ). Here is a country fighting wars in multiple theatres, increasing defence spending to obscene levels, yet pretending everything at home is perfectly normal. Americans still drive their Humvees, cause a quarter of the world's global warming, still buy expensive, palatial, and unheatable homes, still spend, spend, spend on all the imports of unneeded goods now made in China. How dare Americans treat the rest of the world with such disdain? You can't and shouldn't fight any war without personal sacrifice, never mind two or three. The funny thing is that Americans (and we) still have to find this out, because, boy oh boy, the sacrifice will come, and it won't be quite so funny then. 
We now see exactly the same softening up process directed at the American public, other governments and the United Nations to deal with Iran, as we saw prior to the Iraq war. The exaggerated claims and rank falsehoods, in this case imminent nuclear weapons, though in fact Iran has done nothing illegal, and according to the IAEA it will be up to ten years before Iran would be able to produce a nuclear weapon. We see the same demonising, calling Iran part of the the Axis of Evil and the comparing of Iran's leader President Ahmadinejad to Hitler. We see the same pressuring of the UN to act against Iran, as they did against Sadam. We hear the same phrasing "we are losing patience". The simple fact is that Iran does have the right to a civil nuclear programme and Iran is absolutely determined to proceed with this, come hell or high water. So, instead of the international wailing and gnashing of teeth, and this comes from many other countries apart from America, every single effort should be brought to helping Iran succeed in their endeavour. They should be supported, not excoriated and encouraged, not threatened. We should be supplying nuclear experts to aid them, and we should also stop the limited sanctions that have been imposed on the country, now. Every unfair or overbearing action or criticism merely stokes the fires of stubborn nationalism, as it would in any other country. Which is exactly what Bush wants, and which other nations are naively or stupidly conniving with. Is there no common sense in left in the world? 
There are genuine concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, in particular it did try to keep some aspects of this secret from the inspectors of the IAEA. The presence of two previously unkown enrichment plants was revealed in 2000. This is not the behaviour of a country that has nothing to hide. However the inspectors are now back in Iran and, as before, should be given the chance to complete their work. Equally all diplomatic and economic avenues must be explored to exhaustion before any military action should even be begun to be considered, and that through the UN. Bush has no intention of allowing this. In the past, the IEAE has said that Iran is still some years off gaining the ability to make nuclear weapons, and there is no doubt that allowing countries to pursue uranium enrichment as part of a civilian nuclear policy, is a weakness in the treaty. However, the present Iranian government can rightly point out that Iran's nuclear programme commenced in 1957, when the Shah was in power, within the framework of a bilateral agreement with the US! This American support for Tehran's nuclear programme continued until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Other countries implicated in helping Iran's nuclear programme over the years include Russia, China and France. (Link)
Hypocrisy
But the NPT binds all signatories to its agreements. This being so, Iran, and indeed any nation, could quickly point to the hypocrisy of the US and other nuclear capable nations. This list is long:
This American push for building and renewing its nuclear arsenal is likely to precipitate a new nuclear arms race. For a while the nuclear threat seemed to be diminishing, but single-handedly President Bush's actions have become a major boost to an increasing nuclear meanace. But these problems are not the product of a stupid man. The Bush regime's entire purpose is to cause uncertainty and reaction, it provides an excuse for the aggressive actions that he and his coterie have already agreed on. All the failure of American policy in regard to nuclear weapons and proliferation are not the result of accident or carelessness, but are very specifically designed to provoke and concern. In particular they are designed so that other nations can use America's duplicity as an excuse for their own, to stir the nuclear pot, as it were. The present leadership's actions are entirely in keeping with a long held belief in the Neo-Con thesis that America should be the dominent world power for the foreseeable future, and this includes preserving overwhelming military and nuclear superiority, and using nuclear weapons pre-emptively if circumstances are deemed to require it. So whilst I have entitled this section "hypocrisy", it isn't that at all. It's a deliberate and calculated policy, proceeding quite logically from the fascist and mafia-like clique who now run America. God help America, God help us all. 
The threat of an attack on Iran, perhaps even the use of nuclear weapons, appears so outrageous, that we are inclined, as peaceful people generally, to reassure ourselves that such an attack on Iran couldn't possibly happen. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, the future course of action against Iran has been spelt out consistently and clearly by the Bush regime, and his far right supporters, as for instance the members of the Project for the New American Century, for some years. This is what a former high-level intelligence official in the Bush administration is reported as saying "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah‹we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism." This quote comes in the article by Seymour Hersh mentioned above. It makes sobering reading. The blocking by the Bush administration of tripartite talks between the EU, Iran and the US means, as similar stone-walling did in Iraq, that the US is determined to deal militarily with Iran, and will brook no delays or diversions.
Sebastian Haffner was a law student in Germany in 1933, and he kept a journal of his experiences in that country, until he fled to the UK in 1938. These journals were discoverd by his son in 1999, and published in 2000 in German as Defying Hitler, later translated. Bernard Weiner gives a thoughtful and thorough commentary here . I have not read Defying Hitler, but google the title for other reviews and comments, and Amazon has number of reviews. The parallels between pre-war Germany and early 21st century America do not exist only in my mind. There is no place for naivety or wishful thinking in this matter - the Germans, and everyone else, were guilty of this before the Second World War, and look what happened then. The unthinkable, as in Iraq, could, very easily, and very soon, become the reality.
Bam, Iran, now partly destroyed by an earthquake, Dec 2003. Will we be shortly
seeing pictures of other destroyed cities in Iran, but this time due to bombs?
PS. I have used a some of this material previously on my site, discussing a previous G8 meeting in Birmingham, and the problems with nuclear proliferation. This article enlarges and updates this, and incorporates it into the specific issues in regard to Iran. JKM
PPS (14/4/06) Thinking about what I am writing, it is very easy to write America off, and to assume that what we have now is what we'll have in the future. What would it take to get the population to turn on Bush rather than accept or support him? I was reading today of how many of the firefighters and people in New York caught up in the events of the ninth of September, are now suffering major respiratory problems due to inhaling dust from the collapsed towers. Apparently this dust contained up to 4% asbestos, the lead and other toxic elements from 50,000 computers, and the highly corrosive alkaline detritus of the powdered concrete. 15,000 helpers were exposed for several weeks searching the rubble with less than satisfactory masks or respirators. Countless others would have been exposed by being involved or near the site. It appears that there is a very worrying and increasing incidence of severe respiratory problems in the affected people and a number have already died. And this is only four years after the event. Many respiratory diseases take a lot longer to become manifest, especially mesothelioma associated with asbestos. The potential for a major public health crisis is in the making.
But the issue and complaint here is that firstly the White House doctored health reports from the site in the immediate aftermath of the attack, minimising or discounting the concerns of some of those measuring air pollution. Indeed just a few days after the attack the EPA said that "the air was safe to breathe", and Wall St went back to work. It was seen as a morale booster to get people back to work, but it looks like a major gamble was taken with people's health. A Federal judge has allowed a class action to be taken against the involved authorities, particularly the EPA. Secondly, whilst the Federal government have funded a clinic in Mt. Sinai Hospital to screen 16,000 men and women who worked at ground zero or in the disposal area, this does not include 10,000 federal employees amongst the rescue workers. The government did start a screening programme, but then closed it down after only 400. But even worse, the Federal government has not given any money at all for the treatment of those affected. Congress did restore $125 million for health related issues for 9/11 that Bush had cut from the budget. There has been call to appoint a health "czar" who will take overall control and responsibility for this increasingly worrying matter to be dealt with.
Perhaps this sort of news, gradually percolating through the consciousness of the American public, and even more the media, might just be enough to open their eyes to the sheer iniquity and incompetence of the worst president that America has had the misfortune to suffer. There are some moves to impeach Mr Bush, five state Democratic committees have voted to do this. I don't know how far they will get, but a ground-swell of discontent and worry is beginning to rise. If this gains some momentum, then this might derail the White House's war agenda in Iran. Though I wouldn't count on it.
Here's a few, humane and thoughtful words from Michael Savage, the appropriately named syndicated radio talk show host, reflecting in his usual urbane and witty manner on the recent demonstrations in regard to the problems of illegal immigrants in the U.S. This man is listened to regularly by nearly ten million people, and there are plenty more like him in the good ole US of A. Translate his words into German and raise the emotional content a bit, and Mr Savage could be mouthing the words of a well-known and now defunct leader of the similarly defunct Third Reich.
