Kevin Rudd's Iran problem

I remember once seeing an illustration of St George slaying the dragon, except that the caption read 'Matilda the Martyr and the Man in the Tin Suit'.

Professor Akbarzadeh refers to the 'Iran problem' (the inverted commas are his) but should we see the issue really as the 'American problem'?

Surely this is an opportunity for Rudd to do what Howard never did and that is to demonstrate our commitment to the US alliance by privately counselling our ally against escalation whilst overtly hosing down the hype and hysteria that zionists, vested interests, and right-wing media are keen to generate.

Israel, India, Pakistan, and probably Korea have nuclear weapons. They've never used them, and we've learned to live with them. Why should a nuclear-armed Iran be any greater problem than the others?

Well said Mr Meggs! I hope we all live to see the day when our elected government has the courage to hose down the hysteria that Zionist supporters have been generating around Iran of recent years.

We don't need a Ph.D in politics to see that nuclear armed Israel's unceasing screeching about Iran being an 'existential threat' serves to distract the world's attention from Israel's multi decade long brutal occupation and creeping annexation of Palestine.

Remember when President Obama was flavour of the month? As tough as he got was saying, "No more settlements." Let us look forward to the day when Obama says, "No settlements!" And then, and then, and then ... acts accordingly. Peace on Earth - at least potentially.

We notice no mention in this piece of nuclear armed Israel: a state, unlike all nations in the Mid-East, that possesses weapons of mass destruction, including hundreds of nuclear weapons, and refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What sayest thou Shahram Akbarzadeh?

'once the US made clear its disapproval of the thuggish behaviour of the authorities against protestors, the familiar dynamic of anti-US hostility was restored'

Above statement is really nice. That clears up how the Iranian government has given a lot of ground to the Americans.

By claiming Iran has no capacity yet to own nuclear weapons, this provocation would force the Iranians to seek nuclear more vigorously. And if found out they own such things, that would give legitimacy to attack Iran. If the Americans and its allies get it right this time, unlike invasion of Iraq, the Iranian administration would give the upper moral ground to the Americans.

So who are the cleverer?

Israel has not been making any noises that it intends to wipe any of its neighbours off the map. Such cannot be said for Ahmadinejad.

It has been reported that he has called Israel "a filthy bacteria", and has said that Israel must be destroyed.

I think that Israel has every right to be concerned about an nuclear-armed Iran.

Apart from the much hated Jewish nation, Iran's Sunni Muslim neighbours are keeping a wary eye on the expansion of Shi'a Islam from within Iran. Israel is not the only country to fear what Iran may do with nuclear arms.

If the US and its allies took a similar stand against Israel, India, Pakistan, Korea and led by example then its credibility on this issue means something. Selective sanctions and protestations will only stand for naught.

Let us separate the rhetoric from the reality. Iranian leaders have used some colourful language but so have US leaders - remember GWB's 'axis of evil'.

The reality is that no nuclear state (with the exception of the US when it was the only nuclear state) has ever used nuclear weapons.

The prime purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter. That's why the UK, France, USSR and China initially sought them, and why Israel, India, Pakistan, and Korea followed, and why now, possibly, Iran is also seeking them.

And given the propensity of the 'West' over the past few centuries to intervene in resource-rich countries when it (the West) perceived a threat to its unfettered access to those resources, can anyone blame them (the resource-rich countries) for wanting to secure the deterrent that nuclear weapons seem to promise?

The 'Middle East' may be a mess, not the least because of previous western interventions, but it's not going to get better while the West continues to interfere.

A good ally is like a good friend, someone who will tell you plainly when s/he thinks you are wrong. That, I think, is the opportunity that Rudd now has. But sadly I don't think he will take it.

It is false to claim that Kevin Rudd came into office "on a wave of anti-war backlash" against "the 2003 war in Iraq". That's a throw-away line easily made, but one that ought not be taken seriously by analysts. The same applies to the author's claim that Australia has "an ideological commitment" to nuclear non-proliferation. Canberra abides by non-proliferation "norms" to the extent that the foreign policy elite assesses that it serves Australia's state interests. If Australia had an "ideological commitment" to non-proliferation then Canberra would have voted against the US-India nuclear deal at the NSG.

If Australia had an "ideological commitment" to non-proliferation then it would not have watered down its own nuclear safeguards policy, in relation to the export of uranium, partly at the behest of resource corporations.

Iran has its own uranium deposits, and it needs more power generation. From the time of the Shah, it has been training nuclear engineers for this reason.

Iran can also reasonably expects that oil export revenues will start declining in the next decade. It needs to have other industries; exporting nuclear technology is suitable. Iran may not, however, have sufficient uranium as to export it as a commodity.

Iran has also seen what happens to regimes the US wants changed, if the US KNOWS full well that regime has previously gotten rid of its WMD.

The surest way of not letting US attempt Paul "first we take Baghdad, then we take Tehran" Wolfowitz's mad scheme is to achieve some sort of detente through possession of nuclear weapons.