Rob, you seem to indicate that you think it is inevitable, or probable, that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. I think it is unlikely because international society would be derelict and moribund if such a thing were to happen. It is my view that the damage caused to the international system if Iran were to successfully defy most of the Security Council members would have terminally deleterious effects for the international security framework.

You mentioned elsewhere the need to reform the UN etc - if Iran defies Russia, China and the threat of military action from the USA, then my guess (and I am being pessimistic here) is that international behavioural norms may well disintegrate - tinpot countries everywhere will cease to view "instructions" backed up by "threats" from the international community as having any real content.

It will be a case of: welcome back Thomas Hobbes, you have not been missed.

"Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders... The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." - Ronald Reagan

Rob wrote:

I'm not sure that we can stop Iran from having some nuclear capacity. It is very hard to argue that they should not have nuclear power, and once they have that then it becomes much more difficult to argue that they can't have nuclear weapons.

I think we need to explore this more. We can say that Iran cannot have nuclear power. Iran is sat atop enormous oil reserves. It doesn't need the energy. Indeed, a point I have made before is that everyone who argues that we shouldn't expand our nuclear power capability cannot possibly argue that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear power to begin with. The bottom line is that Iran wants nuclear power to develop nuclear weapons. We are signatories to international agreements that are designed to prevent proliferation.

Now, you say that there is precedence in that other countries that are not democracies have nuclear weapons. But this is not a system of rule-setting by precedent. Just because one man beats his wife and gets away with it does not give licence for another to do the same. Just because one country abuses the human rights of its citizens does not morally authorise another country to do precisely the same. Just because one totalitarian regime obtains nuclear weapons does not mean it is acceptable (let alone desirable) that another achieve the same thing.

We also need to remember that - at least for now - we are militarily and economically much stronger than Iran. We can make demands of Iran and expect them to take the demands seriously; they might be "inconsistent" (as judged by some) and we might be charged with hypocrisy for treating Iran differently than, say, to Pakistan or North Korea. But I would rather be a hypocrite and ensure that yet another totalitarian regime did not obtain nuclear weapons than be a smug non-hypocrite while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel with nuclear weapons.

We need to choose which is worse: to be hypocritical (arguably - I think not, but let us assume this is the moral price paid) and use the full range of our economic and (possibly) military might to ensure that a totalitarian regime does not obtain nuclear weapons OR to allow a totalitarian regime to obtain nuclear weapons.

------------------------------
"Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders... The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." - Ronald Reagan

For peace-loving liberals everywhere the prospect of a war with Iran is, I tend to assume, mostly unthinkable.

It's the second worst possible outcome.

The worst is a nuclear-armed Iran.

This does, however, raise the question: if he had not made these threats, would there still be a compelling case against Iran having nuclear weapons?

Yes! There are international treaties to which we are signatories that forbid the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We might describe this as an international legal precdent.

Okay, North Korea and China both have nuclear weapons and neither are democratic regimes. Obviously this involved technological proliferation. So what? We can't undo the past. We can't stop them from having nuclear weapons. But we can stop Iran from having nuclear weapons - and in doing so we make the world a safer place.

The argument relating to popular opinion and war is always problematical. But we can't shy away from making the right choices re Iran because our leaders made the wrong choices with regard to Iraq. A great deal of these arguments, of course, were played out seventy years ago with regard to German rearmament and the militarisation of the Rhineland (hat-tip to Phil). Germany did not want war, appeasers argued. They were wrong to argue this. They are still wrong.

Simon Mollan is softening us up for war with Iran because he wishes to promote the interests of Jewish elites.

What he doesn't tell us is that if the United States does attack Iran it will be because the US elite wants to help itself to Iran's oil, not out of any desire to protect Jewish people.

The threat to "wipe out" Israel is childish bombast, and Ahmadinedjad is a politically inept buffoon.

In reality, Iran is incapable of harming Israel, and would be wiped off the face of the planet if it tried.

That's the reality.

Now let's deal with the hypocrisy.

It is unthinkable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, but perfectly OK for Israel to have them (and bear in mind that Israel, unlike other nuclear powers, refuses to open its nuclear arsenals to international inspection).

So says Simon.

A Judaeo-centrist will retort that the Jews are God's "Chosen People", so nothing the Jewish state does can legitimately be criticised. But that would be to descend to the intellectual level of the Iranian mullahs. (And this is an argument I have heard from many an Evangelical Christian, and many on the neo-con right.)

But I am a liberal, a secularist and a freethinker. So I refuse to dignify obscurantism by treating it the way I would a reasoned argument. Yes, I have stated the Judaeo-centrist position in very stark terms, but that is what it is once you strip away the obfuscation.

Now, let's dispose of the fatuous comparison of Iran and Nazi Germany. In 1939, Germany had the world's largest army and a vast military arsenal. In the previous two years, Germany had annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, and was demanding Poland as well. Iran, by contrast, has never invaded a neighbouring country. Indeed, Iran was actually the victim of military aggression by Iraq. Furthermore, it is hard to see which country Iran could conceivably invade. Turkey? Pakistan? Anywhere in the former Soviet Union?

Does Simon actually believe the propaganda he is peddling here? Or is he merely a mouthpiece for religious and political elites?

Remember. Attacking Iran could lead to the deaths of millions of people. Millions of human beings whose lives matter just as much as ours here in Britain.

"Attacking Iran could lead to the deaths of millions of people. Millions of human beings whose lives matter just as much as ours here in Britain."

Whereas a nuclear-armed Iran, of course, would not harm or even threaten a fly.

Let me make one point clear. I do NOT want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

What I question is (1) Iran's intention to use them preemptively and (2) the use of military force to prevent Iran acquiring them.

Do remember that Iran has no history of aggression towards its neigbours.

Simon, what "wacky" ideas about Jews am I articulating?

The existence of Jewish elites, perhaps? There are Christian elites, Moslem elites, British and American elites, but no Jewish elites?

One "wacky" idea about Jews which I definitely do NOT articulate is that Israel was given to the Jews by God.

Religionists are in no position to lecture anyone on reason.