ANuclear Proliferation in Iran: A Cause for Concern or an Unfair Target?

[fargoth]

do i have to do everything?

okay here you go:
1)
i said that if the supreme leader once said that one nuke would destroy israel completely, maybe he thinks it would just end with one nuke,
and no one would do anything after that.
meaning there is a possibility he'll try to nuke israel if he gets the chance... i hope he wont, but there is a possibility, and waiting to see if this possibility realizes is just to dangerous...

2)
Valy-e-Faqih (Supreme Spiritual Leader)

The highest-ranking official in the Islamic Republic is the leader or Vali-e-Faghih (Jurisprudential Guardianship). Iran has three powers namely, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary which are headed by Vali-e-Faghih. The leader or the leadership council is chosen by the Council of Experts, the members of which are elected by the direct vote of the people.

The functions and authorities of the Leader are: Determination of the general policies of the system, holding the supreme command of the Armed Forces, declaration of war or peace, appointment and dismissal of the faqihs (clerical Islamic canonists) of the Council of Guardians, highest authority of the Judiciary, head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Chief of Joint Staffs, Chief Commander of the Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC), chief commanders of the Armed Forces and police forces as well as signing the order of appointment of the president, dismissal of the president after the Supreme Court has given a verdict on the violation by the president of his legal functions or the vote of his incompetence by the Majlis, pardoning or mitigating the sentences of condemned persons, resolving intricate questions of the system that 2cannot be settled through ordinary means through the Expediency Council, resolving disputes and coordinating relations between the three powers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/leader.htmdo we atleast agree there is a -possibility- that iran would nuke israel sometime in the future?
(maybe i think its bigger, but you must admit some remote possibility exists).
lets say war isn't the solution, do you think anything at all should be done?
i mean except for telling iran they are noughty for trying to build nukes...

 

[alexandra]

Will Iran use nukes on Israel? No. What would they gain from it? The rhetoric is no different than Saddam’s when he claimed he had WMD.

I don't think the Iranians are out to commit mass suicide - as you say, there is no way they'd use nukes on Israel; they'd know what the consequences of such actions would be. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists, in what seems a very logical manner to me, that Iran has a right to develop peaceful nuclear technology - and that, in fact, Iran does not need nuclear weapons:

Iran 'does not need nuclear arms'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country does not need nuclear weapons.

At a rare news conference in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said they were needed only by people who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

The president defended Tehran's recent move to restart nuclear research, which has sparked international condemnation.

Iran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology and denies that it is covertly seeking to develop weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4612546.stm

I don't understand the logic behind the 'western leaders' who, on the one hand, argue that the only thing we can do to slow down global warming is turn to the 'nuclear energy option' (a view that's highly debatable, but belongs to another discussion), while on the other hand they refuse to let developing countries take this option. But such contradictions are not surprising - such double standards are not new:

Washington's nuclear friends and foes The developing diplomatic row over Iran's nuclear ambitions has highlighted the question of consistency in US and Western efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Close US ally Israel is widely believed to have an advanced nuclear arsenal which rarely, if ever, draws any criticism from Washington.

India is quite open about its nuclear weapons programme, but this has not stopped the Americans from proposing an ambitious programme of civil nuclear co-operation with the Indians.

So has strategic interest trumped consistency in the non-proliferation field?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4610434.stm

And here's some ridiculous reasoning to think about:

In stark diplomatic terms Israel and India are in a different category to Iran.

Neither India nor Israel, nor Pakistan for that matter - which is also thought to have a small nuclear arsenal - have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Thus they are not breaking their treaty obligations in pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. However, Iran has signed the Treaty and is bound by it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4610434.stm

So, it's all right, then? And also, I was wondering how many treaties the US government has signed and does not feel bound by. The Geneva Convention for one? (I'm referring, of course, to Guantanamo Bay).

I’ve said it before that Iran has hoped to start a dialogue with the U.S., but how can that happen when they are on the rather extensive list of “rogue states” and part of the “axis of evil.” Aside from failure to consider motives and benefits, it bothers me that this is the immediate question in regard to Iran. Why not ask if Israel would use nukes on Iran or any other Arab neighbor? It bothers me that invasion is the immediate solution. Suppose we started a dialogue instead?
My concern is proliferation and possible escalation—no matter what country initiates it. Why isn’t this the discussion? Because of the neocon agenda of imperialism, pro-Israel bias, the anti-Arab culture being fostered in the U.S., not to mention U.S. consideration of using nukes itself.

You're right, SOS: there can be no dialogue in these circumstances - and I totally agree with the point you make about what we should *really* be worrying about (nuclear proliferation and escalation)... One would have thought that the neocons would have learned from their experiences in Iraq (hardly a pushover!), but no...

 

[Art]

you won't find any israelli government that says they'll attack iran, on the cantrary, say said they wouldnt...
and i don't think the US said it would either.

Really...

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington


ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

 

[alexandra]

or how about this? Someone who dislikes me, is going to buy a shotgun. For sure you jump to conclusion that he's going to kill me(certainly someone should kill him right away since I think he wants to use his shotgun for killing me)

An excellent example of the 'logic' of this situation, Lisa!

So think about A NUCLEAR WAR, THEN! I don't know what we should think of a person who's in favor of nuclear war.

Yep - this is no laughing matter. Perhaps everyone should have a look at some of the footage of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their aftermath... or the 1983 movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/plotsummary" .

 

[alexandra]

do we atleast agree there is a -possibility- that iran would nuke israel sometime in the future?
(maybe i think its bigger, but you must admit some remote possibility exists).

No, I don't think so - not at all, no possibility at all - if only because Israel is too close to Iran and to Iran's Arab neighbours, who would suffer massively from the nuclear fallout. This is a ridiculous thought - I don't think even the US would have nuked Cuba because it is too close. The only reason the US government nuked Japan was because it was far enough away that US citizens would not be affected.

lets say war isn't the solution, do you think anything at all should be done?
i mean except for telling iran they are noughty for trying to build nukes...

I think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. I don't think there is any reason to 'tell them off' because there is no evidence that they have developed nuclear weapons:

Iran has alarmed the international community by removing the seals at its nuclear fuel research sites - but experts say it is several years away from being capable of producing a nuclear bomb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm

. Although there are claims that the Iranian government *wants to* develop nuclear weapons, there is no evidence of this.

 

[fargoth]

ah, so if iran says they don't need nukes, we should believe them?
anyway, i really hope youre right...

ok, I am done commenting on this issue, i will try to reasure myself that nothing bad is going to happen like youre saying, that iran would not use its nukes once it gets them... (or maybe even won't make them at all? although i don't think i can make myself believe this one...)

lets just try to live as nothing is happening around us and hope the nuke won't fall.

and in this optimistic tone...

heh, I am amusing myself, well my stupid usual view of things is that everything happens for the better in life.
guess i should stick to my naive side once more, it had proven itself so far.

 

[Lisa!]

do i have to do everything?

okay here you go:
1)
i said that if the supreme leader once said that one nuke would destroy israel completely, maybe he thinks it would just end with one nuke,
and no one would do anything after that.
meaning there is a possibility he'll try to nuke israel if he gets the chance... i hope he wont, but there is a possibility, and waiting to see if this possibility realizes is just to dangerous...

Sure! For example if I think a human would be killed by shooting him 1 time on his head, that means I might want to kill someone if I ever get a shotgun.
Are you kidding? He must be crazy to think that no 1 would do anything after that!

2)
Valy-e-Faqih (Supreme Spiritual Leader)

The highest-ranking official in the Islamic Republic is the leader or Vali-e-Faghih (Jurisprudential Guardianship). Iran has three powers namely, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary which are headed by Vali-e-Faghih. The leader or the leadership council is chosen by the Council of Experts, the members of which are elected by the direct vote of the people.

The functions and authorities of the Leader are: Determination of the general policies of the system, holding the supreme command of the Armed Forces, declaration of war or peace, appointment and dismissal of the faqihs (clerical Islamic canonists) of the Council of Guardians, highest authority of the Judiciary, head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Chief of Joint Staffs, Chief Commander of the Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC), chief commanders of the Armed Forces and police forces as well as signing the order of appointment of the president, dismissal of the president after the Supreme Court has given a verdict on the violation by the president of his legal functions or the vote of his incompetence by the Majlis, pardoning or mitigating the sentences of condemned persons, resolving intricate questions of the system that 2cannot be settled through ordinary means through the Expediency Council, resolving disputes and coordinating relations between the three powers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/leader.htm

Oh dear! The person you're talking abut him is A. Ali Khamenei not former president of Iran Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani! All militaries are under the control of the leader, but he can leave the power to the president if he wants.
Anyway war isn't a joke that you think the leader of a country can decide about it only by his own. People should agree on this too.(at least the majority of the population.) And as far as I know they claim that using nukes is totally immoral according to Islam. But if another country uses nukes against you, that could be another story.

do we atleast agree there is a -possibility- that iran would nuke israel sometime in the future?
(maybe i think its bigger, but you must admit some remote possibility exists).

They might nuke Israel perhaps if US or Israel attacks them!

lets say war isn't the solution, do you think anything at all should be done?
i mean except for telling iran they are noughty for trying to build nukes...

Has Iran ever claimed that "please let us get nukes"? the current problem is that they want Iran to stop all its nuclear activities even the peaceful usage of nuclear energy. I'm not sure about my information on this 1 though.

 

[Lisa!]

you won't find any israelli government that says they'll attack iran, on the cantrary, say said they wouldnt...
and i don't think the US said it would either.

saying youd attack is declaring war, no one did it yet, and i think it would be stupid for both sides to declare the war before attacking.

Ah silly me! I though Israel's said they were going to bomb Iran's nuclear centers!

and by the way, i said it earlier but you seem to ignore it - i don't think iran -has- nukes yet, they -will- have, it won't be nuclear war if it'll start in the near future.
and i -dont- think a fiull scale war would happen, nor should it.

Nope, I didn't ignore it. I just told you if they're that close to get nukes, they'd get it during the war. Although there are other ways to get nukes during the war.

i think that if things will be done quietly, it'll save a lot of human life.
but something must be done in my opinion.

Oh yes, I had forgotten that Iraq war only lasted for afew days. and you know this 1 even would last less than that!

as for going to war with someone who already has nukes, that'll end the world in my opinion, so its highly not recommanded

I hope it WOULD never happen.

PS thank you for answering my question!

Regards

 

[SOS2008]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists, in what seems a very logical manner to me, that Iran has a right to develop peaceful nuclear technology - and that, in fact, Iran does not need nuclear weapons: I don't understand the logic behind the 'western leaders' who, on the one hand, argue that the only thing we can do to slow down global warming is turn to the 'nuclear energy option' (a view that's highly debatable, but belongs to another discussion), while on the other hand they refuse to let developing countries take this option. But such contradictions are not surprising - such double standards are not new.

Exactly. And even though they have oil, aside from environmental issues, it is a limited resource that they would rather export to avoid trade deficits. If only the U.S. could be as smart, but we remain dependent on foreign oil so are compelled to solve our problems with our military might (all brawn, no brains).

And here's some ridiculous reasoning to think about: So, it's all right, then? And also, I was wondering how many treaties the US government has signed and does not feel bound by. The Geneva Convention for one? (I'm referring, of course, to Guantanamo Bay).

You mean like the Kyoto Protocol?

You're right, SOS: there can be no dialogue in these circumstances - and I totally agree with the point you make about what we should *really* be worrying about (nuclear proliferation and escalation)... One would have thought that the neocons would have learned from their experiences in Iraq (hardly a pushover!), but no...

Well the Europeans are trying to carry on the talks -- why they are concerned about Iran's nuclear program I'm not sure. I've been meaning to look into this. But I do know the Iranian people still want reform very badly. This goal has likely been further frustrated due to their new hard-line President, but they do agree with him that they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. A military attack over this would hardly win their hearts and minds.

In the meantime, some neocons may no longer be pleased with Bush, but they still stand behind the invasion of Iraq. The plan has been to continue "addressing hot spots" (i.e., Iran, Syria, etc.). The dream must be fulfilled! When you add the Zionists into the mix, look out, its WWIII (and more like the prophecy will be fulfilled).

 

[selfAdjoint]

And also, I was wondering how many treaties the US government has signed and does not feel bound by.

You mean like the Kyoto Protocol?

The US has NOT signed the Kyoto protocol!

 

[Art]

The US has NOT signed the Kyoto protocol!

President Clinton signed it but it was never ratified by the senate.

 

[Sprinter]

What would Iran do with the nuclear technology? To make nuclear bomb? To attack Israel?

 

[SOS2008]

The US has NOT signed the Kyoto protocol!

Sorry about the confusion. alexandra also makes the point that just because a country is not bound by a treaty does not mean it’s okay to behave as they please. My response was to this--Like Bush not signing the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. therefore is not breaking a treaty, but this does not mean the U.S. is behaving in an acceptable manner toward the rest of the world.

 

[alexandra]

Sorry about the confusion. alexandra also makes the point that just because a country is not bound by a treaty does not mean it’s okay to behave as they please. My response was to this--Like Bush not signing the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. therefore is not breaking a treaty, but this does not mean the U.S. is behaving in an acceptable manner toward the rest of the world.

This is exactly what I meant, SOS. And I'm obviously not the only one who holds this view:

US, UN and International Law

The Bush administration has embarked on a strategy of hard line unilateralism, disregarding the UN and international law. The Bush doctrine of preemption defies the UN Charter by allowing the US to use illegal force against other states. Furthermore, Washington ignores, blocks, violates or even unsigns international treaties. The administration rejected the Kyoto protocol and the comprehensive test ban treaty on nuclear disarmament. It repealed the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty and blocked efforts to strengthen the biological weapons convention. The government continues to violate the Geneva Conventions by refusing the rights of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. In May 2002, the White House announced that it would unsign the Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, stating that the Court would subject US nationals to a politically motivated international justice.

Much more information here (this is an excellent resource): http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/unindex.htm

Have a look at this long list of international treaties the US has either refused to sign or refused to ratify: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

The list includes the following treaties:
* Convention of Discrimination Against Women (!)
* Convention on the Rights of the Child (!)
* International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
* Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
* Mine Ban Treaty

And more! Look at the list. Below that list, there is also a link to an interesting article from the Chicago Journal of International Law:

The Charade of US Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties
By Kenneth Roth*
Chicago Journal of International Law
Fall 2000

It is sadly academic to ask whether international human rights law should trump US domestic law. That is because, on the few occasions when the US government has ratified a human rights treaty, it has done so in a way designed to preclude the treaty from having any domestic effect. Washington pretends to join the international human rights system, but it refuses to permit this system to improve the rights of US citizens.

This approach reflects an attitude toward international human rights law of fear and arrogance--fear that international standards might constrain the unfettered latitude of the global superpower, and arrogance in the conviction that the United States, with its long and proud history of domestic rights protections, has nothing to learn on this subject from the rest of the world. As other governments increasingly see through this short-sighted view of international human rights law, it weakens America's voice as a principled defender of human rights around the world and diminishes America's moral influence and stature.

The US government's approach to the ratification of international human rights treaties is unique. Once the government signs a treaty, the pact is sent to Justice Department lawyers who comb through it looking for any requirement that in their view might be more protective of US citizens' rights than pre-existing US law. In each case, a reservation, declaration, or understanding is drafted to negate the additional rights protection. These qualifications are then submitted to the Senate as part of the ratification package. n1

More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2003/0806charade.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

Have a look at this long list of international treaties the US has either refused to sign or refused to ratify: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

And what are we to conclude from this? That the US Senate (which is the arm of government charged with ratifying treaties) and the Presidents (who are charged with presenting the proposed treaties to the Senate) have found these accords not in keeping with the best interests of the US? Is this criminal? The whole UN idea is based on the fact that different countries are sovreign and able to make their own decisions about agreements. Only the UN charter is universal and the US has accepted that; it is constitutionally "the law of the land". So if you want to smear the US government you should focus on our failure to live up to that.

And it's just a cheap shot to demonize Bush on this. Democratic Senators have gone along with the rejections too, and the US public is in favor of their decisions.

 

[alexandra]

And what are we to conclude from this? That the US Senate (which is the arm of government charged with ratifying treaties) and the Presidents (who are charged with presenting the proposed treaties to the Senate) have found these accords not in keeping with the best interests of the US? Is this criminal? The whole UN idea is based on the fact that different countries are sovreign and able to make their own decisions about agreements.

Yes, but the UN is also based on the idea of international cooperation on matters of common interest. This is how the 'United Nations' is portrayed - a body that works towards furthering the interests of the whole international community. When other states act against what the US governments perceive as being in the US' 'national interests', they are forced to toe the line. The US government, however, does as it pleases. A more truthful argument would be "Ok, we recognise that this seems unfair - but so what? 'Might is right."

Only the UN charter is universal and the US has accepted that; it is constitutionally "the law of the land". So if you want to smear the US government you should focus on our failure to live up to that.

Pardon me, selfAdjoint - it is not my intention to smear anyone. Is it not possible to discuss what is happening, or our perceptions of what is happening? This discussion started off examining what people thought would happen in Iran. It developed, in quite logical fashion, into a discussion about who signed which treaties and who didn't.

And it's just a cheap shot to demonize Bush on this. Democratic Senators have gone along with the rejections too, and the US public is in favor of their decisions.

I have never, in any of my posts, distinguished between the Republican and Democratic Senators. In fact, I do not participate in the discussions/arguments about the 'differences' between these two parties, quite simply because I do not believe there are any substantial differences. Once or twice, I have even pointed this out in previous discussions, clearly stating that IMO there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, or between Mr Bush's and Mr Kerry's policies. IMO Both parties and their members act in the interests of big business.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to the U.S. public, only a minority is well informed enough to vote intelligently. Perhaps this is why members of Congress, including Dems are not doing a good job (as reflected in polls), and many representatives in the House have no qualifications and no business being in Congress at all.

IMO I feel the U.S. will continue to struggle to lead the world toward anything if the U.S. is not a model for what we ask others to do (i.e., hypocrisy). If it is Bush who makes a policy/policy change, then it is merely stating a fact, and is not Bush-bashing.

In an effort to stay on topic, I add to the discussion on nuclear proliferation only, beginning with this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28806-2004Jul30?language=printer

The US and others have pushed for Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) for many years, as one of many mechanisms to help prevent proliferation, especially by nations termed as “rogue states”, and by terrorists.

However, as reported by papers such as Washington Post (July 31, 2004) and Sydney Morning Herald (August 2, 2004), the Bush Administration announced that it would back out of a nuclear inspections treaty by opposing provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

As the article notes, “Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.”

Charges of US hypocrisy abound from this, especially considering this announcement came “several months after President George Bush declared it a top priority to prevent the production and trafficking in nuclear materials.”

Military analyst for the Los Angeles Times reported (January 26, 2003--direct link not available) on “The Nuclear Option in Iraq; The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon.”

Arkin highlights that “the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism.”

The BBC also revealed a report from the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear disarmament organization, that a leaked document suggests that Washington has had detailed planning for a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons. This has raised further concerns of double standards; that Iraq is not allowed to have such weapons, while the U.S. can, and also breach the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm

So now we are demanding that Iran must abandon its nuclear program altogether, even for production of energy. I can’t imagine why they don’t just fall in line and do as we dictate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I fear the Bush administration more than I fear any external threat.

 

[EnumaElish]

Shouldn't we give a chance to U.N. sanctions before the military option?

 

[SOS2008]

Shouldn't we give a chance to U.N. sanctions before the military option?

Absolutely. You may recall that the U.S. invaded Iraq because they decided against giving UN sanctions any more time to work.

Even Republicans should be concerned, because the biggest threat to U.S. national security is our national debt. Can we afford to spend more on another war of attrition? (Insert Stupid Smilie Here)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, but the UN is also based on the idea of international cooperation on matters of common interest. This is how the 'United Nations' is portrayed - a body that works towards furthering the interests of the whole international community. When other states act against what the US governments perceive as being in the US' 'national interests', they are forced to toe the line. The US government, however, does as it pleases. A more truthful argument would be "Ok, we recognise that this seems unfair - but so what? 'Might is right."

International cooperation is fine, but the Kyoto treaty was (in my perception) a sleazy political deal designed to weigh lightly on those who proposed it and very heavily on the US. Furthermore it wouldn't have stopped global warming even if fully implemented. The President and Senate were right to reject it. Sorry about the O.T. rant but it bugs me.

 

[SOS2008]

International cooperation is fine, but the Kyoto treaty was (in my perception) a sleazy political deal designed to weigh lightly on those who proposed it and very heavily on the US. Furthermore it wouldn't have stopped global warming even if fully implemented. The President and Senate were right to reject it. Sorry about the O.T. rant but it bugs me.

I felt the U.S. couldn't afford to lose any more ground against China (and to a lesser extent, India), who also hasn’t signed it. Nor was I in favor of the U.S. making commitment to providing additional aid to Africa, especially without some kind of guarantee that these countries would manage the funds properly. But we should nonetheless try to be as responsible as we can in regard to the environment, and Bush hasn't been exactly pro-environment on any level.

Back to the main discussion, this business of not signing something doesn't mean it's okay for a country to behave contrary to it, or worse, renege on something that was signed because it is no longer convenient. In regard to nuclear proliferation, the hypocrisy does not make for credibility in our stance toward Iran.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Back to the main discussion, this business of not signing something doesn't mean it's okay for a country to behave contrary to it, or worse, renege on something that was signed because it is no longer convenient. In regard to nuclear proliferation, the hypocrisy does not make for credibility in our stance toward Iran.

I agree with this if you include Germany and other European countries with the US in "our". The history of international response to nuclear research suggests that Iran is being treated unfairly. The UN did not impose sanctions as I recall on India or Pakistan. Sanctions are a miserable tool anyway, look at the mess they made in Iraq.

 

[NewScientist]

The history of international response to nuclear research suggests that Iran is being treated unfairly. The UN did not impose sanctions as I recall on India or Pakistan. Sanctions are a miserable tool anyway, look at the mess they made in Iraq.

A fair point but one must also consider that numerous immmoderate years have passed since the dawning of the nuclear age in Pakistan and India - we have had a massive polarisation in the world between the East and the West, tensions on both sides are extremely high and a very fine balance has evolved. The West cannot exerty too much pressure on the East due to the worry of oil and nor can it use force due to its moral stance. The East can, on the other hand, use violence and other forms of actions not open to the West but is wary that overstepping the mark will cause severe reaction. With this view of a 'powers system' any major advance by one side or the other could lead to a downfall in relations. To this end the West (and some member of the East) are extremely worried about nuclear proliferation outside their sphere of influence, especially in countries like Iran.

The idea of sanctions being a miserable tool is also true to a point, though I believe it would be better to say that untargetted and narrow minded sanctions are the porblem, as some sanctions can be effective.

NS