In america, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration who, with the help of the jews-only state in palestine, manipulated the country into a war against iraq are now busy repeating the same tactics as regards iran. "Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence are being fit to meet the policy". It’s the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi
_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005). America’s jewish elite pushed the bush administration into a proxy zionist war against iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and it is currently pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran over non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

The main question then is when the attack will be launched. A number of commentators believed the attack would happen in june 2005. Many believe the most likely date is the end of march: some argue it will be before iran establishes its new oil bourse whilst others point out that it is unlikely to take place before the jews-only state has elected a new jews-only government. The most confident speculation that could be made is that it will be before the russians provide nuclear fuel to start up iran’s bushehr nuclear reactor. But basically the bush administration has the luxury of choosing the best time for such an attack. Over the last few years, america’s jewish elite has primed the american public for a war against iran. "The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West." (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006). As a consequence, america could go to war at any time with a popular wind behind it. The latest barrage of anti-iranian propaganda began after january 14th 2006 when iran broke the united nations’ seals on its nuclear facilities, and within a matter of weeks opinion polls showed there was a majority of americans willing to support a war against iran. "Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found." (Greg Miller ‘57% Americans support military action in Iran’ Los Angeles Times January 27 2006).

It is possible the war will not take place for many years. When the neocons were unable to get the gulf war allies to invade iraq in 1991, they insisted the united nations should impose severe sanctions against iraq which lasted for 12 years before the invasion eventually materialized. The same could also be true of iran. "The regionalization of the war, and the widening split in Islam, are successes so far as the War Party is concerned. "Creative destruction is our middle name," says neoconservative guru Michael Ledeen, and there is no better phrase for a civil war. For the Iraqis and U.S. policymakers ­ as well as the Republicans ­ the chaos in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. For the neocons, however, it is a great victory. They have achieved half of exactly what they wanted, and now it remains for them to lure us into war with Iran and push their project to completion. If they have to do that under a Democratic administration, then so be it. Whether the Republican establishment succeeds in keeping John McCain at bay, or whether he bolts the party to lead a "Bull Moose" bipartisan coalition, the neocons ­ the vanguard of the War Party ­ will prove strategically flexible enough to attach themselves to whomever is left standing. In any case, they see this as a long-term commitment: it took them a decade to foment this war, and it will doubtless take another decade ­ they figure ­ to win it." (Justin Raimondo ‘On the Road to Empire’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8622 March 1, 2006).

There are still many reasons for suggesting the bush administration will not launch an attack on iran. When bush ordered the invasion of iraq many americans were still angry about the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings and demanded retaliation against those responsible. They were pleased with the successful invasion of afghanistan and the routing of the taliban and had become confident the american military could quickly overpower any nation. The american economy was ticking over. As a consequence, there was widespread public support for bush’s invasion of iraq. Today, however, the political and economic conditions in america are much different and do not lend themselves to another war especially another military invasion. Much of the american public has become weary of america’s continued occupation of iraq and many have become opposed to it. The president is becoming increasingly unpopular since many americans believe he lied about the pretext for the invasion of iraq. However, it has to be suggested these are not critical factors that could deter a war against iran. It is more than likely that the first shots in a war against iran would instantly transform public attitudes and lead, at least in the short term, to a huge boost in the president’s popularity.

Most objective, impartial experts estimate that iran is about a decade away from constructing a nuclear bomb. "In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives."" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm October 26th 2004); "Even if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weaponry, the CIA estimates that it would take years before anything of any significance could be produced." (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/
chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDGB790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"? "We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek. Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb ­ in three years." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Another Undeclared War? http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8405 January 18, 2006); "Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate: "Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not. "The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428 January 23, 2006).

The israelis in america pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran allege that iran’s bushehr reactor could be used to produce nuclear weapons. This is another israeli lie. "Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation. There are two different kinds of reactors, heavy-water or graphite-moderated reactors; and pressurized, or "light water" reactors (PWRs). The Dimona nuclear power plant in Israel is an example of the former. The Bushehr plant is the latter. The Israeli plant is ideal for yielding the desirable isotope of Plutonium (Pu 239) necessary for making bombs. The Iranian plant will produce plutonium, but the wrong kind. It will produce the heavier isotopes, Pu240, Pu241 and Pu242 - almost impossible to use in making bombs. Crucial to extracting weapons-grade plutonium is the type of reactor and the mode in which it is operated. The Israeli-type plant can be refueled "on line," without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously. In the Iranian plant, the entire reactor will have to be shut down - a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources - in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin." (William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer ‘Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)’ http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?
article_id=1b68abecee07b0cb8cf9ed0bc9de5954 Jun 26, 2003); "The reactor at Bushehr was specifically designed to use light-water to make recovery of plutonium more difficult." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003); "It is worth noting the admission of many nuclear experts, including Mike Levi of King's College of London, that "it is impossible to enrich uranium to weapons grade in bomb quantities using the pilot facilities that the Iranians have"." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html Jan 18, 2006).

The reason jews in america and palestine are lying about the immediate threat posed by iran is to prime the american public for a war so the bush administration can launch an attack when the political and military conditions are most favourable. Basically all the jewish lobby needs to do is continually exert pressure on politicians to agree to a war in principle so the attack can take place when the time is right. The slightest incident with iran, which will doubtlessly be fabricated by mossad, or its chums in the bush administration, will provide the justification for the bush administration to conclude it is time to launch the war.

Firstly, to exploit its vast uranium resources. "Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year." (George Jahn Associated Press ‘Diplomats: Iran Readying Nuke Processes’ November 19th 2004).

Iran has a growing nuclear industry to economically exploit its abundant uranium resources. It mines uranium; it is creating milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium; conversion plants to create uranium hexafluoride; and can manufacture gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants. "Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004). Iran’s nuclear power industry could process the country’s vast uranium resources and export nuclear fuels around the world making substantial profits.

Secondly, iran’s nuclear power industry could generate huge amounts of nuclear electricity and export it to surrounding countries in order to make even more profits.

Thirdly, another major consideration is that the domestic consumption of nuclear energy would enable iran to export more fossil fuels, "They have a reasonable explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for domestic purposes, the more they will have to export." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006).

The fourth major factor is that a nuclear energy industry would extend the life of iran’s fossil fuel resources. Given that, in the future, the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will boost the price of fossil fuels, then current efforts to preserve fossil fuels will eventually reap huge financial benefits.

The europeans are also interested in such a strategy, "The Europeans are aiming to get Tehran to cease all uranium-related activity permanently and depend instead exclusively on imports of low-enriched fissile material produced by the Europeans for Iran's civilian nuclear program. This is totally unacceptable to the Iranians." (Dilip Hiro ‘The Iranian Nuclear Issue in a Global Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5952 May 14th 2005).

In other words, the russians and the europeans want to prevent iran from exploiting its own uranium resources and force it to pay vast amounts of money to import a commodity which it has in abundance. It’s good to think that they are trying to uphold the moral principles of the non-proliferation treaty rather than finding a means for promoting their material interests.

Whilst the blair government insists that iran stops any further development of nuclear energy it is also demanding that britain needs to increase its reliance on nuclear energy. Blair wants to revive britain’s nuclear power industry in order to combat a predicted energy shortage even though there are plenty of energy saving measures that could make nuclear energy redundant. The blair government sees no contradiction in its bizarre double standards. "Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israel’s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEA’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927 August 13, 2005).

The israelis in the bush administration are squealing about iran’s move towards civilian nuclear power because they fear nuclear proliferation and yet iran is the only country they are picking on over this issue, "The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus. At the same time, the administration is reducing restrictions on other emerging nuclear states that pose a far more serious and immediate threat to world peace. The United States also recently removed nuclear restrictions imposed upon India for their thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. Much of the impetus for this reportedly came from the head of the export licensing arm of the Commerce Department, who is lobbying for a job as ambassador to India and who has a very cozy relationship with the Defense Department's neoconservative leadership. Brazil is now defying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding questions over its nuclear program, which is not benign. This would violate the long-standing U.S. determination to keep South America nuclear- free. And the U.S. response? No seismic rumbles of the kind directed toward Iran are apparent here. And forget South Korean enrichment efforts - clearly they were "just a mistake."" (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDG
B790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialed with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it." (Praful Bidwai ‘Iran Confrontation in the Cards’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8481 February 1, 2006); "In a now-all-too familiar display of hypocrisy, the IAEA resolution which Bush has now successfully strongarmed India to endorse, sends the Iran issue to the UN Security Council to punish it for its so-called breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and lack of confidence that it is not trying to make weapons. The text of the resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program.'' It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations'' to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," and it requests IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, to "report to the Security Council" with steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. So, India, a producer of nuclear weapons and a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, will get nuclear favours from Bush in exchange for supporting Bush's ramp-up for a seemingly imminent attack on Iran, an NPT signatory, for which there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program." (Ingmar Lee ‘The Smiling Buddha Blast and Canada's CANDU Snafu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee02272006.html February 27, 2006); "President Bush effectively tore up the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by announcing this week that "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states." Translation? Even though India refused to be a Party to the NPT, because India has developed and tested nuclear weapons, India should now "acquire the same benefits and advantages" that the NPT bestows on the five "nuclear-weapons states" ­ US, UK, France, Russia and China. Specifically, even though all NPT signatories not having nukes are required to subject all their nuclear programs to a full-scope Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the five NWS are allowed to unilaterally decide which of their nuclear programs ­ if any ­ they subject to such an agreement. Prime Minister Singh announced India was prepared to "assume the same responsibilities and practices" of the five NWS." (Gordon Prather ‘Tearing Up the NPT’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6729 July 23, 2005).

In recent years it has also been surrounded by america. Firstly, through its military occupation of afghanistan and iraq. And, secondly, through the establishment of military bases in many countries surrounding iran, "The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=view
Article&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005). There are also military bases in kuwait and the united arab emirates. "The reality is that there are U.S. troops in Dubai, over 1,000 of them, and the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is a part) is one of our staunchest allies in the region. We have also signed a defense pact with Abu Dhabi, and the emirate has been used as a base from which to pre-position U.S. troops bound for Iraq. Our planes refueled at Dubai's al-Dhafra air base on their way to patrol Iraq's no-fly zone during the run-up to the invasion. Dubai has borne the costs in fuel and facilities maintenance of these U.S. military operations, and receives not a dime in "foreign aid." In addition to hosting over 1,000 U.S. troops at various air and naval facilities, the U.A.E. is contributing to the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Germany. The Gulf states are islands of U.S. influence in an Arabic-Muslim sea of Middle Eastern hostility: to insult them in so flagrant a manner would be to effectively sink the pro-U.S. governments that have so far remained our only faithful allies in the region. Fearful of Iran, the U.A.E. has cozied up to the U.S. like no other country in the Middle East, except, perhaps, Kuwait." (Justin Raimondo ‘Hating Arabs’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587 February 22, 2006).

Thirdly, iran faces an even more intense encirclement through the expansion of nato’s role in the middle east, "NATO expansion project to include the US allies had been explicitly requested in a report submitted by the former Spanish Prime Minister José-María Aznar, L’OTAN, une alliance pour la liberté in which he talked about the possibility of including not only Ukraine and Georgia, but also Japan and Australia, and why not Israel. The Alliance would become then a permanent coalition for the service of Good as defined by the White House. Including Israel in the Alliance would create an obligation for all member States to provide assistance to the Jewish State if attacked by Iran, even though it was in self-defense." (Munich Conference: accession of Israel to NATO and attack Iran’ http://www.voltairenet.org/article135669.html February 15th 2006).

The iranians thus believe they have legitimate military reasons for possessing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their nuclear-armed neighbours. If the jews-only state in palestine has nuclear weapons this legitimizes iran’s possession of such weapons. (Once again, these arguments are not meant to support nuclear weapons but to support the abolition of all such weapons).

It is true that iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. But it is legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty if it believes this would be in its national interests. The jews-only state illegally occupying palestine has refused to sign the treaty so this provides less incentive for the iranians to continue abiding by it. Indeed, the best moral and legal justification that iran has for developing nuclear weapons are the threats being made against it by the zionist occupied governments of palestine, britain, and the united states.

Justin raimondo has pointed out that if the bush administration is worried about terrorists getting hold of iranian nuclear bombs there is an even bigger risk of this happening in pakistan and yet it expresses no concern about this. "To begin with, proliferation of nuclear weaponry is bad in and of itself: we don't want another Pakistan on our hands, in which we nervously await an internal eruption to empower some Islamic nutball to launch a nuclearized jihad. On the other hand, we've endured the Pakistan situation for this long, and its potential consequences in terms of getting nuclear arms directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden & Co. are far more likely ­ and more horrendously lethal ­ than the prospect of Tehran acquiring nukes." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).

Power is not fixed in concrete in iran. One commentator has pointed out the limits to the power of the iranian president, "Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member "Assembly of Experts" who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn't control the High Council of the Nation's Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar. Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?Story
ID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006). But another commentator has suggested that since coming to power mahmud ahmadinejad has managed to transform a number of iranian institutions to extend his power base. "Lack of progress on the economic and social-justice front notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad has introduced massive changes to the face and operations of the executive branch. Virtually all provincial governors have been replaced by Ahmadinejad loyalists, who tend to be young and hail from the Islamic Republic's security establishment, in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC - or the Sepah-e-Pasdaran). Moreover, Ahmadinejad has replaced most senior bankers and other important figures in charge of the country's finances. Furthermore, many of the country's most experienced diplomats have been recalled from abroad and replaced by less experienced figures, with backgrounds in the Sepah-e-Pasdaran and other security outfits." (Mahan Abedin ‘Ahmadinejad on the warpath’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak02.html February 18th 2006). This hardly suggests that iran is a fossilized theocracy. It is much more like a flexible democratic country.

A vitally important part of any democratic system is the protection of minorities. Given iran’s ancient history this might have been fertile ground for the appearance of persian supremacists wanting to create a new persian empire by conquering arab countries and acquire arab land. And yet such tendencies have not appeared since the islamic revolution. If anything the exact reverse has been the case. Iran’s admiration for islam leads it to respect and honour arab countries which also promote islam. As a consequence it would be anathema to the iranian state to persecuting its arab minorities. "Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005).

On a more mundane level, quite how western neocons could argue that wars are a means for establishing democracy after what has happened in iraq is not explained and is not explicable. If iraq is anything to go by, war is the worst possible means for bringing about democracy. The more that the jews in america and palestine bring about devastation in iran, the less likelihood there is of democracy rising from the ruins.

It has to be suggested that iran’s political system is much more democratic than that prevailing in the apartheid jews-only state in palestine. So why isn’t the west trying to democratize palestine? Jews in america spend more of their time, effort, and resources, on trying to push america into wars for the benefits of the jews-only state than they do in trying to reform the racist nature of the jews-only state in palestine.

According to roger howard, the reason the jews-only state in palestine is opposed to iran getting nuclear weapons isn’t the military threat posed by such weapons but their political consequences for mutual disarmament. "It seems likely, then, that there are other, more convincing, reasons why Israel is concerned about an Iranian bomb. One possibility, for example, is that Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves ­ all UN-monitored ­ by Tel Aviv." (Roger Howard ‘Why Israel Really Fears Iranian Nukes’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/howard.php?articleid=4065 November 27, 2004); "Now that Saddam is defeated, Israel must seriously consider foregoing its nuclear weapons as part of a grand bargain with Iran. And the other Arab states, which are covertly developing the possibility of going nuclear, must open up and renounce the effort as Libya recently did." (Jonathan Power ‘The Danger of an Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article
=60411&d=14&m=3&y=2005 March 14th 2005).

This position has recently been endorsed by justin raimondo, "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat ­ as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister ­ perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority ­ might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) ­ that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…)." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).

The real reason, however, why the jews-only state does not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons is because this would neuter the jews-only state’s ability to use its nuclear weapons to blackmail america into fighting zionist proxy wars. The jews-only state would no longer be able to blackmail america into providing a constant supply of economic assistance, military hardware, and cutting edge military technology.

The neocons, israelis who are traitors to america, continually resort to propaganda in the hope of undermining opposition to an attack on iran. They have occasionally floated the idea that america should not only prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but should try to remove those in the jews-only state in palestine. But, the idea that the israelis who have colonized america’s media/congress/administration/presidency will pressure the jews-only state in palestine into giving up its nuclear weapons for the sake of encouraging middle eastern countries such as iran to abide by the non proliferation treaty is preposterous. When in april 2004 bush recognized "the facts on the ground" concerning zionists’ illegal occupation of palestine he was also taking the first step in recognizing the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons.

Whether the bush administration forces the jews-only state in palestine to abide by international law and give up its nuclear weapons or whether it uses its military power to ensure the jews-only state’s monoploy of nuclear weapons in the middle east, is a good indicator of the extent of jewish global domination. Given that iran is not currently a military threat to either europe or america, and given that its possession of nuclear weapons would not pose a military threat to either europe or america, the fact that western countries are treating the iran issue as their primary foreign policy issue suggests they are all acting under orders from the jews-only state in palestine. Watching american, european, russian and chinese, politicians dancing to the zionist tune over iran provides conclusive proof as to the existence of jewish world domination. The jews-only state has taken over political leadership of the western world. Whatever policies are promoted by the jews-only state in palestine are then adopted by the zionist occupied governments of america and britain and then imposed on the rest of the world. America’s policies towards iran have nothing to do with american interests. On the contrary, they run counter to american interests. The foreign policies being pursued by the american, british, french, and german, governments are policies first formulated by the jews-only state solely for the benefit of the racist state in palestine. The jews-only state, and the jewish lobby in america, pushed the nixon administration into supporting the jews-only state in the 1973 middle east war, the proxy zionist gulf war in 1990, and the proxy zionist invasion of iraq in 2003. The west has suffered huge economic and military losses as a result of its implementation of the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. It shows just how many sacrifices that western governments are willing to make for their jewish masters. But what is even more remarkable is that nobody in the western world seeks to blame the jews-only state for such losses. The west currently seems willing to sacrifice even more of its wealth and ooman lives on yet another proxy zionist war for the benefit of its jewish masters.

As regards the energy shortage issue: If iran is not going to be allowed to generate nuclear energy, what is it going to use for energy when its fossil fuels are exhausted? Iran has abundant fossil fuel resources but even these are going to run out so what is it going to do once they have gone?

As regards the climate change issue: Western governments are demanding that the west increases its reliance on nuclear power to reduce its Carbon emissions and thus help to combat global warming. In other words, they want to prevent iran from adopting what they believe is the best option for combating global warming. Western governments pretend they want to reduce Carbon emissions from fossil fuels and yet they are forcing iran to continue using fossil fuels which will pollute the atmosphere and destabilize the climate. The west sees no contradiction in this bizarre double standard.

It seems the west is going to use its military power to allow only their allies to use nuclear energy. When the oil runs out, the rest of the world is going to have to survive without oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Only the west’s allies are going to be allowed to combat climate change and the increasing costs of fossil fuels by switching to nuclear energy. The rest of the world is going to have to pay more and more for fossil fuels until eventually they become too expensive. Poor countries will end up becoming even poorer because they have no energy resources. Prior to this inequitable policy it was hoped that all countries around the world would eventually become rich and that the divide between the first, and third, worlds would disappear. This new international policy will prevent this from happening. By denying countries access to nuclear technology, the over-industrialized world is also preventing other countries from developing industrially. In other words, the rich world is going to keep the poor world in a permanent state of poverty.

It seems as if the bush administration has concluded it cannot just ban countries from exploiting nuclear power leaving them bereft of energy. It has come up with an idea for helping countries to develop nuclear energy without increasing nuclear proliferation. "Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Department of Energy just announced plans to form a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, through which the U.S. "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste, and minimize proliferation concerns." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). Gordon prather believes the chinese have developed a nuclear reactor which cannot be exploited to provide nuclear weapons. This new advanced nuclear reactor is also supposedly safe from a meltdown and comes in handy size packs that can be mass manufactured for use all over the globe, "The proliferation-proof, meltdown-proof pebble-bed technology development began in Germany more than 30 years ago and was continued in South Africa, but has apparently now been perfected in China. If, as planned, similar units are produced modularly in factories in China, by 2020 China will be the world's only supplier of first-rate nuclear power plants." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). As to where the nuclear waste from these pebble-dashed nuclear reactors will be stored once its useful energy has been extracted is not known but then only "eco-wackos", as prather refers to them, would raise such an issue. Whether these nuclear reactors are bomb proof is another matter not mentioned.