IS THE WORLD A SAFER PLACE?

[wadestock]

The administration is playing up this catch all phrase...and will do so to the bitter end before the election.

They’ve been and will continue to toot their horn about how Libya has backed down under the awesome pressure of US presence in the Middle East.

BUT WHAT ABOUT IRAN?
On the MacLaughlin show this Sunday they discussed the issue of Iran and it’s potential attempt to become “invasion proof”. Hmmm...interesting concept. Geeze...I wonder why they might have an incentive to become invasion proof?

You want to get scared about another 4 years of Bush...read this article…
http://www.payvand.com/news/04/jun/1180.html
Has pro-IRAN bias...but a must read in terms of developing the bottom line I’ve been harping on all along....

THE REAL INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS OVER ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND OUR ILLOGICAL SUPPORT OF THIS “HIDDEN” AND VERY DESTABILIZING THREAT. (In other words, control THIS nuclear force, and you've made the first real step towards stability in the Middle East).

You couple the neocon nuclear paranoia with the brewing situation in IRAN and you’ve got the recipe for 4 more years of hell....

Excerpts...

It would truly be too naïve to think that the United States and Israel really anticipate that the Iranian government would bow under their diplomatic pressures on the IAEA, and allow all its nuclear research and development activities to become exposed to open inspections. That’s not going to happen. Iran maintains, and rightly so, that it has the right to engage in all types of research and development, including the production of nuclear fuel for its projected power generation facilities, under the NPT agreements, as long as there are no activities related to weapons production. Iran has also agreed to allow much more intrusive inspections by accepting additional IAEA protocols, thus far not yielding any clear evidence of a breach of the NPT regulations.

Does this mean that Iran is definitely not engaging in activities leading to nuclear weapons development? No, it certainly does not; and Iran doesn’t intend it to be perceived that way. Does Iran have the material and technical capability to develop its nuclear arsenal? Absolutely yes. And finally, does or should Iran have the development of nuclear weapons and means of their delivery as vital priorities for its national defense? The nuclear shell game that Iran has been engaged in for the past two years has accomplished that task rather effectively. The most recent announcement by Iran that it will resume its uranium enrichment process was in response to the rather harsh criticism in the last IAEA report for its lack of full cooperation with the UN agency. This process is perfectly legal under the NPT agreements, and Iran still insists that this is intended solely for peaceful purposes, and has every right to do so.

Who can deny that every sovereign nation is entitled, indeed obligated, to secure its borders against aggression? Iran, a country that has never transgressed against its neighbors, has been attacked by Saddam’s Iraq, been threatened by Israel, and remains in the crosshairs of both Israel and the United States. Israel, a trigger-happy belligerent state armed with a massive nuclear arsenal and other forms of internationally banned weapons of mass destruction, is the greatest source of fear and concern in the Middle East. Is Israel the only country entitled to this measure of self-defense? Clearly, Israel’s formidable military power and ability to strike any point on the map with its nuclear weapons, serve as effective deterrents to any hostile intents in the region. However, Israel, perceived as a paranoid pit-bull by practically every state in the region, is also an ever-present source of trouble against which there has never existed any effective deterrent. How could Iran be denied the right to have access to nuclear parity with its arch antagonist, Israel?