Since the technology and techniques needed to build a Nuclear power plant and a Nuclear bomb are totally different and since Iran?s right to build power plants is specifically protected under the non proliferation treaty I have no problem with Iran making 1, 10 or 100 nuclear power plants if they like and as long as they allow IAEA to inspect them (which they do and will).

I am tired of people putting ?Iran? and ?Nuclear? in the same sentence and then expecting me to wet myself and beg them to bomb something to "protect" me.

Nuclear experts tell us that if all went really well it could be a decade or more before any new uranium enrichment sites come online

These so-called "experts" have been wrong many times before when it comes to analyzing Iran's nuclear aspirations. I'm not sure why I should believe them now.

Even if they are correct this time, and it will take Iran a decade to develop nuclear weapons, does this mean the world will have to live with this Iranian nuclear cat and mouse game for the next ten years?

"..It's tough getting tough with Iran.."
True, but if we were serious about it, we would also be 'getting tough' with whicever country is supplying the technology and the hardware - and don't try and kid us that they are designing and making all their own! Or don't we tackle the big boys, who can kick back? I well remember where the missiles which sunk British Navy Vessels in the Falklands conflict came from.
Not a bloody word of criticism of their suppliers though.

no one is in the mood for yet another military action and Iran knows it.

Did you check with Benny about that?

Lets get tough with Israel - it actually has nuclear weapons .

And how many nuclear power stations did the British government recently claim it wanted to build?

@Buckenheimer

We have a bunker buster for YOU!
Go get `em Israel.

I hope you'll ride the bomb down, cowboy...

as long as Israel is the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons
they will continue to beave like bullies, so it is just right that Iran gets those weapon too

buckenheimer - do you not feel a bit of a chump egging on a war that is likely to end in everyone fucked? Its MAD... literally.

Whilst im not so naive to believe Iran is not a potential threat to Uk interests.
Im not prepared to accept at face value evidence handed to me by the same vested interests who told me that Iraq was a clear and present threat to UK security.
Also, i am not prepared to see one UK citizens life endangered for US or Israeli foreign policy or safety.

Iran does not have any major enemy. So the logic should be that it does not need any nuclear deterrent. If it did not make war like rhetoric against it, Israel will not be interested to attack Iran. So what is the need? If a regimes is ruled by priests (Mullahs) it has other priorities. It is there to fulfill god's will and not the will of the people. In some cases even the self interest of the country is not a top priority for them. We should suspect the motives and be prepared for the worst. A regime change against Mullahs is not what most of Iranians will approve. All we can do is offer them other sweeties in return. If it does not work, try harder. Carry on trying.

Shades of Saddam, except Iraq will shortly have WMD's.

Sooner or later it will come to blows.

Ms. Torfeh

".......Iran's delaying tactics have won the day, and the favoured policy of carrots and sticks has failed. The carrots seem never to have been sweet enough and the sticks never harsh enough........"

Of course, the carrots were never going to be sweet enough because Iran sought nuclear weapons. The evidence is overwhelming.

The EU looked liked fools from the outset because it was obvious that the Europeans were only interested in trade relations with Iran, and, more importantly, with the energy resources of Iran. There never was any serious attempt to change the behavior of the Iranians.

In addition, the Obama administration threw the Iranian populace under the bus in an attempt at ?reconciliation? with the Iranians. In the interest of solving the Iranian crisis, this was probably the only approach left short of a military strike that could conceivably bring the Chinese and Russians on board for tough, effective sanctions. Just like you, I doubt that this approach will work because its unlikely that the Russians and Chinese will join the west in a united front against the Iranian intentions.

?.........Nuclear experts tell us that if all went really well it could be a decade or more before any new uranium enrichment sites come online ? and probably much longer, given Iran's slow track record. This leaves plenty of time for the development of a viable political alternative by Iranians.......?

Your timeline is way off. The Iranians already have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb - with further enrichment. If the goal is to stop the program, then the international community has far less time.

Regime change is certainly the goal and while its a good idea to support the opposition in Iran, its doubtful that they will prevail considering that the Iranian military is (seemingly) behind the regime. At this point unilateral sanctions by the Europeans is the best option. Europe is Iran?s largest trading partner. In addition, a gas embargo should be imposed on the Iranian regime.

Even then, this option is probably too late. A military strike is really the only viable option remaining to significantly delay the program, but its highly unlikely that the US will support such a strike either by the US military or Israel.

Israel has nuclear bomb capability, but no one is threatening them with trade sanctions or bombing runs.

On rule for some and a another for others. The difference being perhaps that Israel does not possess crude oil reserves.

The US is determined to get it hands on Iranian oil and this is one way of going about it.

The neocon plan to sandwich Iran between US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is proving somewhat expensive in loot, life and limb.

shalon

Iran's major enemy is the USA and its surrogate Israel.

It's about the oil, no?

I assume we're not currently researching possible sites for nuclear plants, otherwise we'd be coming from a position of rank hypocrisy.

TomWonacott: you truly are one of CIFs most relentless armchair hawks. Congratulations.

Follow the money...

MT - Israel doesn't have the luxury of waiting for Iran to develop its nuclear armoury and then for the answer to the question of whether Ahmamadjihadi really meant it when he referred to wiping it off the map. So Iran stops its current project (producing nuclear weapons) by mid-2010 or Israel gets the OK to strike the known sites.

Erdington - Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time and has been entirely responsible about their possession, i.e. it hasn't used them in spite of many temptations. Iran can't be trusted to act similarly - its threats to the existence of another state justify that state in taking pre-emptive action. Such action may also prevent a nuclear arms race in the ME and Aegean (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Greece).

North Korea,Pakistan,Israel all seem to ignore U.N. regulations and are a lot more of a threat to the World.By attacking Iran all we do is play into hands of Republican Guard and their front man the President,allowing them to increase their control of the population of Iran (wonder if they and Gordon are both reading the same manual "-how to coerce you population by guarding them against external threat").
We need to play Iran as valuable ally, not a spoilt child,use China's influence to moderate Leaders or we will face another Zimbabwe situation, where the country collapses and we can only watch and cry.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time and has been entirely responsible about their possession

nuclear blackmail + land theft = "entirely responsible" ?

to imogenblack

do you not feel a bit of a chump egging on a war that is likely to end in everyone fucked? Its MAD... literally.

How is a surgical strike by the IDF on Iran`s nuclear facilities going to result in "everyone fucked", as you so vulgarly put it?

to erdington

Iran's major enemy is the USA and its surrogate Israel.

It's about the oil, no?

Um, no.

"Surgical strike" I think there was some minor British writer or something, George someone, who warned against the use of euphemism. I think he said military mopping up operations were nothing tidy.

Surgical strike, indeed. "We have surgically removed any chance of peace, only accidentally killing x number of civilians in the process."

Buckenheimer

Well, I feel better that my country (George W. Bush) sold Israel very large amounts

Sold? Or gave as part of the annual billions in 'support'?

shalone

Iran does not have any major enemy.

To its south is Saudi Arabia - fundamentalist Sunni Islam (Iran is Shia) and Arab as well (Iran is Persian) and a long history of not getting on well with Iran.

In the Persian Gulf is the US Navy - nuclear armed and belonging to a country that has been making bellicose threats against Iran for the last 30 years and which has in living memory sponsored at least one successful coup against the Iranian government.

To the west is Iraq, occupied by soldiers from that same unfriendly US.

A little further to the west is Israel, nuclear armed, and very much in the habit of invading and bombing its neighbours.

To the north is Russia, nuclear-armed and which has in living memory has invaded and occupied a neighbouring muslim country.

To the northeast is Afghanistan, in a civil war, with more of those US troops present, and whose recent (and possibly again future) rulers the Taliban didn't merely kidnap and later release foreign diplomats, they killed them - massacring the Iranian diplomats at the consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif.

To the southeast is Pakistan: Sunni, unstable and nuclear armed, with a Taliban insurrection in its northern provinces bordering Afghanistan.

So, no enemies. Really. Move on, nothing to see here.

orwellwasright

".....TomWonacott: you truly are one of CIFs most relentless armchair hawks. Congratulations....."

Good thing for you that the moderators don't don't delete irrelevant comments.

Buckenhaimer

The Gulf of Hormuz closed.

Chaos on world markets.

Singing Star Spangled Banner by candlelight.

Enraging Muslim opinion to the extent that the terrorism going on now will look like a picnic.

It MUST be you who formulates US foreign policy.

buckenheimer - 'Surgical Strike'? Did I fall into a time machine and wake up in the last cold war?

How precisely does one achive a surgical strike using a weapon as monumentally imprecise as a nuclear one?

ImogenBlack.

Your 5.38 post-----------------another recommend.

I'm going soft in the head.

Put it in a suitcase.

There are in fact tactical nuclear weapons. Elevated Tritium levels were found in the basement water of the world trade centre. Since large explosions were heard and registered as seismic events it is a possibilty.

Another article that mentions Iran's weapons programme regardless of wether or not there's any truth in it.

When will these so called journalists and commentators realise that Iran's weapon's programme is an alledged one and start refering to it as such?

Or is their objective to smooth the way for Israel so that our misinformed public will believe that they are working in our interests and not just removing a threat to their never ending aquisition of land that does not belong to it?

Force Israel to make peace and stop steling other people's land. And if regime change is necessary to achieve it then so be it. Then at least we won't have to have these idiotic articles written by ill informed commentators.

doormouse - I was the first to recomend your 5.34... am breathing into paper bag..!

Arlington and Jonathanwest, Iran's imaginary enemies are not panning to attack Iran. In fact they remain neutral in Iran's real enemies, ,one of which is US. But surely even a Mullah should know that we all live in a jungle and annoying a mightier animal will not reap any benefits. Iran should accept economic help Obama is giving, improve it relationship, sell oil and improve the lives of average Iranians. Compared to other 'oily' arabs, Iran's population is relatively poor. It has oil, oil prices are up. Instead of talking baloney against Israel, it should calm down. A good government is the one that looks after its citizens and not give the impression of a power ready to sacrifice everything for making rhetoric which it cannot fulfill. No country has the right to say that one country should be destroyed completely. This war like talk does not help Palestinians or Iranians.
Yes, pakistan has nuclear capacity, but it has a real enemy, India. India attacked pakistan and took away eastern part, what is now Bengla desh. Even Pakistan is now keen to improve relations with India. That is the difference between a Mulla regime and the one which can be pragmatic.

imogenblack - no-one's suggesting that Israel should use nukes, when conventional weaponry (bunker busters) will do the job, though it'll probably need repeating in a few years' time.

whatthedormouse said - yes, NATO fleets will have to move to the Gulf in advance of the attack; well in advance, so as not to give the game away - otherwise, there's no evidence that Iran will be able to close the Straits of Hormuz or the Gulf.

Shalone wrote:

Iran does not have any major enemy. So the logic should be that it does not need any nuclear deterrent. If it did not make war like rhetoric against it, Israel will not be interested to attack Iran. So what is the need?

In the first place they have the experience of a war that lasted many years. They were attacked by Iraq and some people believe that Sadam Hussein thought he was doing something that would please the US. In any case, Sadam was supported by the US during the war. Second, all the powers around Iran are nuclear powers, including Israel which is an enemy of Iran.

Shalone says further that if Iran were not hostile to Israel, there wouldn't be any danger from Israel. Well, in the first place Ahmadinejah has said explicitly that he had no agressive intentions against Israel, and this restricts the meaning of their position towards Israel. Shalone thinks that the whole problem is the behavior of Iran towards Israel, but it may be the case that Iran thinks that the whole problem is Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians and other neighbours, including Syria which is an ally of Iran. Israel also reacts in a way that is threatening only because Iran has a nuclear program like many other countries around the world. If Israel does't like it, why doesn't Israel change its politics, why didn't Israel accepts Iran's offer of a nuclear free Middle East? I think that if Israel changes their behavior in several ways the situation in the ME would be a lot easier and a lot more peaceful. This would be the most satisfactory and economical way in what concerns this question.

The last problem with Shalone's comemnt it that it presuposes that Iran in fact has a nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence for that.

Buckenheimer wrote:

to imogenblack

do you not feel a bit of a chump egging on a war that is
likely to end in everyone fucked? Its MAD... literally.

How is a surgical strike by the IDF on Iran`s nuclear facilities going to result in "everyone fucked", as you so vulgarly put it?

Your Reagan avatar and the American flag in the background tells us all we need to know about your mindset.

A few consequences:

1. Blocking the Strait Of Hormuz and thereby cutting off a substantial amount of the oil supply to the world.

2. Missile attacks on al Israeli cities and the nuclear facility at Dimona.

3. Direct and sponsored attacks on all American interests in the ME and perhaps its world-wide interests.

4. An economic catastrophe.

And on and on...

Perhaps you might want to give your neocon fantasy wet-dreams a rest.

@Buckenheimer

surgical strike?

Oxymoron nowadays

On the recommending Imogen thing I only have to see her name and my finger starts twitching - is this how a stalker feels?

oldcon - yes they were, see buckenheimer....

@oldcon

"Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time and has been entirely responsible about their possession, i.e. it hasn't used them in spite of many temptations"

Please tell us more! What temptations might those have been? To nuke the West Bank?, Gaza? Lebanon perhaps? No probs with radioactive fallout there!

Award yourself another star for your outstanding armchair generalship.

Iran's delaying tactics have won the day, and the favoured policy of carrots and sticks has failed. The carrots seem never to have been sweet enough and the sticks never harsh enough.

The logic of this statement is that either the theocrats should be offered a sufficiently sweet carrot - but what, short of agreement for them to develop nuclear weapons, would be sweet enough?- or the theocrats should be explicitly threatened with a harsh enough stick -but what, short of bombing their nuclear installations, would be harsh enough?

I wish I could see a less repulsive logic: but I can't. Can anyone?

Possibly the most liberal solution would be to allow the Iranians to make nuclear weapons, if that is what they want; see if they do in fact use these to threaten Israel; consider threatening them back with a sufficiently harsh stick if they do (but hold on, we've already decided not to make such threats in more advantageous circumstances); consider assisting the remains of Israel if the threat is carried out.

I do rather see why this might not appeal to many Israelis.

Iran is playing an extrememly dangerous game.

I expect Israel will "take out" Iran's nuclear industry in 2010, with or without US military support. The UN and EU will of course condemn Israel. And then the world will breath a sigh of relief.

Having dealt with numerous institutions in Iran, I anticipate that we will not have to wait very long before the fallout will be falling - without the influence of outside intervention.

On one hand all the experts say Iranian anouncement amounts to nothing other than a wishfull thinking in Iranian side and the oher hand all the media including you (Mrs. Torfeh) jump into bashing Iran band wagon, because a fashion. The experts claim Iran doesn't have uranium to supply 10 reactors and also it took Iran several years to build small plan in qom.
Iran is known to claim things like that without real basis, so the best is leave them alone with regards to news like this. Stop jumping at every occasions bashing Iran after while it becomes boaring and senseless. Like so many Iranian stations outside Iran bashing Iranian goverment 24 hours a day without any affect. They have no credibility they just bark.
I suggest next time finding a good and tangible subject and wrap your article around.
Why don't you write an article about poor Palestanian who are under occupation for 60 years and recently some were evicted from their land for Israilis to build fancy homes with swimming pools when Palestanian don't have enough drinking water.

So it's fine for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if Iran wants a nuclear power station that's somehow wrong?

Name the country involved in the centre of middle eastern hostilities in the last 6 years. Clue, it's got 6 letters and ends in L.

Massoumeh [Athor] writes:

So, under the circumstances, it could be argued that the most viable path for the international community remains the defence of human rights in Iran and support for the fledgling opposition movement in challenging Ahmadinejad's presidential mandate. This may prove to be a far more potent way to confront the Islamic republic and it could form an important part of any international resolution approved on Iran.

I would have to agree.

Lets have an elevated regime of UN backed sanctions aimed at crippling the Revolutionary Guards of Islamic republic, into effect immediately.

All other forms of dialogue with the Islamic regime of Iran, have now been exhasted.

international accountability w

Eh???

it could be argued that the most viable path for the international community remains the defence of human rights in Iran and support for the fledgling opposition movement in challenging Ahmadinejad's presidential mandate.

So basically you are calling for regime change lite?

Look, the problem is that, you, and most other commentators and 'leaders' simply do not see the reality of the situation. And that is this: If Iran want's nuclear weapons badly enough, they are going to get them. And there is nothing anyone can do about it. Iran is already a major player in regional affairs, and it the so-called 'international community' would do well to work out how they are going to deal with that new reality, rather than keeping their heads stuck firmly in the sand.