Much ado about nothing?

Foreign Policy Magazine has a great article on
the subject -- and do read my comment on the article:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/07/what_if_iran_got_the_bomb?page=full

What If Iran Got the Bomb?

It would be time to calm down.

NOTE to Policy makers: Deterrence Works.

Before the Iranian election, the Obama approach of unilateral but moderate policy changes, accompanied by a mostly carrot/partially stick, was the balanced approach.

With the Iranian election fraud (not bothering to count votes), the very violent reaction to mostly non-violent demonstrations, publicly stated division at the highest theocratic councils, and the anti-British agitation including the arrest of a half-dozen embassy officials (rather than expulsion), show trial and forced public confessions, has tipped the opinion of Iran from "maybe they'll moderate" to "they are nuts, employing scapegoating to the level of mass violence for partisan political ends".

Wait and see is much less popular now. Rather than a potential player in the world society, they are back to the North Korea-like status.

While no one will publicly advocate for bombing Iran, I expect that there are now MANY powers that frankly hope that Israel will undertake an effective military action. (An ineffective one would make things much much worse.)

There are plausibly stated neo-conservative arguments being stated and published that describe the downside of attacking Iran as greatly reduced, even in Muslim states.

Rather than a deal between Syria and Israel as a means to separate Hezbollah and Hamas from Iran, some are contemplating that enabling Israel to bomb, would be the way to isolate the proxies from the nucleus.

Its so sad that Iran made the neo-conservative argument, rather than the incrementally peaceful homeostasis of regional powers bearing fruit in stability.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Dr. Walt when he claims that a nuclear-armed Iran would be effectively deterred by the international community, with the United States and Israel leading the efforts. While the United States and its allies may eventually be able to dissuade Tehran from de-escalating its nuclear enrichment capabilities, such a success would certainly include a tremendous swath of concessions from major western powers. Without compromising the U.S. position towards rogue states (including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, etc) and their militant proxies, it is hard to believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be convinced to abandon their offensive aspirations. Do we as Americans really want to sacrifice our integrity for the simple possibility of Iranian compliance? Even if such a diplomatic approach does work, how would the U.S. Government and the United Nations be able to enforce this provision? The Islamic Republic has already gone so far as to defy the collective power of international institutions...not to mention the basic tenants of universal human rights.

Some may argue that a U.S.-diplomatic campaign with Tehran's clerical regime is better than no campaign at all. This could be true in some respects. However, if President Obama is absolutely serious in taming Iran's nuclear program through deliberation, he must recognize that the option of military force must remain on the bargaining table. To quote a common phrase from former President George W. Bush, "all options must be on the table." What Dr. Walt seems to miss is how powerful and influential a preventive strike is...such threats often have the ability to pressure adversaries into negotiation (whether they truly accept discussion or not). Without a military deterrent available to either the United States or Israel, Iran's hardliners will continue to enrich uranium without any concrete consequences. Absent the dangers of force, what would hold back the Iranians from pursuing this reality? Would more economic sanctions do the trick (the same sanctions that have failed to curb Iran’s behavior over the last few years)?

On the issue of whether a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible without Arab anger and hostility, I see one solution...a successful Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. While I understand the difficulty of formulating a lasting agreement (given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to compromise), milking out a document that respects Palestinian human rights may have a lasting effect: Arab resistance against the Jewish State may diminish significantly. With Palestinians finally living free of Israeli occupation, Arab opposition to an Israeli military campaign would dramatically decrease throughout the region.

Let’s not forget that one of the main reasons Iran is expanding its influence throughout the Middle East is due to its image: it is commonly seen as a powerful country whose leaders "stand up" for the human rights of Muslims. Iranians are uniquely talented in fermenting widespread opposition to Jerusalem’s policies...commonly referring to Israel's harsh treatment of Palestinian men, women, and children. Yet, with a two-state solution fixed, Tehran would lose a remarkable amount of its talent and credibility. No longer would the ayatollah's and mullah's of the Islamic Republic be able to quickly draw Muslim support against an Israeli preventive attack. With a certain amount of credibility gone, Prime Minister Netanyahu may be able to set back Tehran's quest for a nuclear bomb...all the while salvaging his political career at the same time.

I admit that this formula is extremely unconventional and perhaps downright ridiculous to some who advocate unconditional dialogue. While I understand this position, it is foolish to believe that Tehran would purposely scratch its hard work purely for western investment and recognition. Supports of diplomacy should applaud this recommendation: case studies have proven that missiles and bombs often lay the groundwork for constructive dialogue to take its course.

I leave you with one question that has yet to be answered... how long can the world wait before Iran finally gains the expertise to produce a nuclear device? Remember...the Iranians need not use the bomb in order to damage the overall security interests of the United States, Israel, and pro-western Arab governments. Just the possession of a nuclear device could trigger an arms race in the Middle East: a race that we can all agree would be extraordinarily unfortunate in the world's most turbulent area.

Sad, but hardly surprising is the idea that we should just let Iran handle things by themselves, or defer to their supposed need to 'protect themselves', from imaginary threats.

Reality is, that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the nation state that has over the course of 30 years, repeatedly rejected the idea of the independent Jewish state of Israel. It, not Israel, is the one threatening elimination. Such stands are taken not just at the highest levels of Iran's government, but to the people, with their weekly calls of Death to Israel.

Iran's philosophy towards the Jewish state have been wholly absorbed by its two proxy armies, Hizballah and HAMAS.

Iran's "isolation" is due in large part to this militaristic stand. The easiest way to step away from the edge of the cliff, is to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state and forswear plans for its destruction.

Unfortunately, without such steps, claims that Iran mearly seeks the deterrence provided by nuclear weapons, falls on deaf ears, especially in light of the fact that all the neigbhoring nations do not have the military capacity to threaten Iran.

There are few rational comment-writers like CLINT.
His comments should be mandatory reading for all policy making politicians and the sceptics that consider that there is no solution to most of the world's problems.
The wrong people make the policies, all with too many skeletons in their cupboards and obligations to the Israeli lobby machine.
Well done, Clint.

In fact, Israel (Occupied Palestine) has threatened to use nuclear weapons to bomb Iran --- a country with no nuclear weapons. e.g. even the "respected" Israeli historian wrote this in NYT (I wonder how many "Neda"'s would be killed in an Israeli attack and whether the Zionist think-tanks would make a fuss over those pretty dead 'collateral damage' young women):

July 18, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Using Bombs to Stave Off War
By BENNY MORRIS

Li-On, Israel

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.

The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.

But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).

Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”

Let's see what Gandhi said -- Short version:
Yes, Jews lived in the middle east 2000 years ago -- a few Sephardic Jews. This does not give Israel the right to import Jews from all over the globe to live in Arab Palestine.

Ashkenazi Jews should be deported from Israel go live in their own countries.

Israel was born from terrorism and ethnic cleansing and racism.

=====

It is of utmost importance to remember the time of this writing. It is 1938, Hitler is ruling Germany, and the clouds of a terrible conflict have begun to form. Gandhi's article shows his incredible sense of right and wrong, his blind faith in his methodology, and his profound vision of things to come...

A Non-Violent Look at Conflict & Violence

Article Written on November 20, 1938
Published in Harijan on November 26, 1938

by Mohandas K. Gandhi

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which many inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is.

No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Musalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all the one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless.

If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the god fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is easier for the Jews than for the Czechs to follow my prescription. And they have in the Indian satyagraha campaign in South Africa an exact parallel. There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany. The persecution had also a religious tinge. President Kruger used to say that the white Christians were the chosen of God and Indians were inferior beings created to serve the whites. A fundamental clause in the Transvaal constitution was that there should be no equality between the whites and colored races including Asia tics. There too the Indians were consigned to ghettos described as locations. The other disabilities were almost of the same type as those of the Jews in Germany. The Indians, a mere handful, resorted to satyagraha without any backing from the world outside or the Indian Government. Indeed the British officials tried to dissuade the satyagrahis (soldiers of non-violence) from their contemplated step. World opinion and the Indian Government came to their aid after eight years of fighting. And that too was by way of diplomatic pressure not of a threat of war.

But the Jews of Germany can offer satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than Indians of South Africa. The Jews are a compact, homogeneous community in Germany. they are far more gifted than the Indians of South Africa. And they have organized world opinion behind them. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in nonviolent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned in to a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanized man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted that latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in the their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.
Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine, not by aggression but by loving service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the word's Literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jews can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.
© 1987 Navajivan Trust.

Well, it turns out Jews are not the chosen people after all -- stop press!

Here is how Zionists with "PhD's" behave when they hear that news:

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

US support of Israeli warmongering towards Iran's nuclear program, legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is outright, hypocritical, double standard BS the United States has been following in its foreign policy.

The US should force Israel to adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. They want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.

Israel has their hegemonic aspirations to hide, Iran does not. After all, Iran has not invaded another country for 3500 years. Israel on the other hand, well, their record speaks for themselves.

It is in line with AIPAC rhetoric to demonize Iran. It takes the focus off them and it’s their intention to agitate elsewhere so the world does not focus on their ulterior motives.

We fought their war in Iraq to the detrimant of the US, isn't that enough ?

Arab states and non-Arab states on the periphery of the Arab world have been living in the shadow of Israeli nuclear weapons for four decades.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has issued numerous statements affirming that Iran does not have the bomb and that there are no signs it is trying to develop one.

Iran itself has said it will not produce nuclear weapons. Furthermore, unlike Israel it has signed up to the NPT and allows inspections of its nuclear installations.
Not since Mordecai Vanunu provided information and photographs to the London Sunday Times in 1986 has any information leaked out about what is going inside Israel’s main nuclear plant at Dimona.

During the Kennedy years, Israel allowed American nuclear scientists to make ‘visits’ to Dimona but these proved to be so ineffective they were eventually discontinued (by the Nixon administration). When the scientists were allowed into the plant they were rushed through and never allowed to see what they needed to see to confirm that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons.

Of course, a full inspection of the Dimona plant would have revealed that this was exactly what Israel was doing.

Anyone in Iran’s shoes would regard the attitude of the US, the UN Security Council and the EU, both following the US line in support of Israel, as neo-imperialist.

Since 1979, the Islamic republic has gone to war only once, to defend itself against attack by Iraq in 1980.

Israel has invaded Lebanon twice (1982 and 2006), has attacked Syria once (when it bombed what it claimed was a nuclear site in September 2007) and Gaza many times, culminating in the three week onslaught beginning in late December 2008. To this list must be added its undercover operations, including assassinations, in the occupied territories, Syria and Lebanon.

The Iran issue is 100% Israeli.

When will Obama hold Israel to the same standards that Israel is demanding ? Let's level the nuclear playing field here.