Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had his last chance

The hypocrisy and the paucity of the analysis is depressing. Iran is in a region which has Israel, Pakistan and India all with nuclear weapons, none legal, and yet we deal with these nations as friends - little is said about their weapons. Iran is, in fact, the only country to sign up to the NPT, and we treat it as an enemy because it looks like it might want to get a nuke!!!

All we can talk about is sanctions or invasion!! What about concerted diplomatic pressure - get all the countries with trading and cultural relations to apply pressure on Iran in whatever way they can. This needs to be accompanied with help to support Iran to address its needs. The US can no longer act as sherrif - there needs to be a concerted action - everyone's security is threatened by this situation. But we need to treat all countries evenly.

Gray Southon

Sanctions may or may not work

Bombing probably won't work

Doing nothing definitely not work

Invasion is the only thing would be 100% certain of success

On George W, where art thou?

As always, it is all so simple:

WHO CARES, if Iran has nuclear weapons?

There is only 1 option that will create a win-win: OPEN UP.

Fact:
* Iran, will never attack anybody with nuclear weapons (then they will indeed be wiped on the face of the earth)
* All neighbours already have them anyway (nobody is talking about nuking North Korea or Pakistan while they are much more unstable)
* War will only cost the west MUCH MUCH MUCH lives, money, prestige, and goodwill. Nothing good comes of this (only look at Irak, Afganistan: get the hell out of there today!!!)
* Sanction will only cost the west a lot of money + goodwill and make sure that the present regime will be supported and does not have to change.

There is only 1 positive route. Open up:
* Let them have their stupid weapons, let them show off
* A large part of Iran is very cultured
* Make them dependent on the west.
* Let them grow
* Let them gain respect
* Let them raise their living standards
PROBLEM SOLVED: everybody wins:
* Nobody care about those 5-10 bombs
* The west earns from them
* No lives lost
* Iran earns from the west

Everybody wins.

It is all so simple.

The famous words of Voltaire: "I do not agree with what have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it", spring to mind, every time I hear or read sanctimonious pontifications from those who ignore/reject Iran's inalienable right to build nuclear weaponery.

What blatant right (wrong?) does anyone have - especially those who who live in countries that possess & proliferate nuclear arsenal for decades - to protest or prevent any other nation (including Iran) from doing the same??

As the Messenger of Peace so sagely stated two thousand years ago: "Don't try to remove the speck in my eye, when there's a log in yours" (or something to that effect).

Folks, get off your high-n-mighty hypocritical & judgemental horses & go look at yourselves in the mirror, sans your rose-tinted glasses, for crying out loud..

@gray southon:
India never signed the NPT, so their bomb is not "illegal". Pakistan is not exactly anybody's "friend", as it is on the verge of being a rogue state (probably Obama's war in Afghanistan has more to do with Pakistan than that country.)
Israel is a wholly different game. For over a millenium now, whatever state governed Jerusalem was automatically a Great Power. Too many interests around the globe intersect there (unfortunately).
But I agree with you that the U.S. cannot and should not be the world sheriff.
I think an Asian military summit should be held, somewhere near Iran (India?), between India, Russia, China and the U.S. - perhaps with European participation, perhaps not. An agreement should be sought on joint military action - sending a message that none of the world's nuclear powers are willing to accept an Iranian bomb.
As to Europe, it's a pity the Sarkozy/Merkel axis did not see fit to choose a serious President of Europe. On the other hand, if this should not be primarily a U.S. problem, it is even less a European problem.
@Durbinator1:
George Bush was an idiot. Iraq was never a serious threat, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no substantial ties to Al-Qaeda terrorists. His illegal war against that country wasted American military strength, money and prestige in a battle against the wrong country. His policies are directly responsible for the mess the world now faces in Iran, since their obvious decision to go nuclear will now be more popular in worldwide Muslim opinion.

@ Gray Southon:

I find your tunnel-visioned approach depressing & troubling. You brazenly mention only "Israel, Pakistan & India" as nations with "non-legal" nuclear arsenal!! How about the real 'offenders': US, Russia, Britain & France, among others??

Why is it OK for the US, Western Europe & Russia to amass, retain & proliferate, individually, enuf nuclear arsenal to destroy planet Earth, many times over, while they are the most vociferous protesters of any other nations, (including Iran), joining this apparently exclusive nuclear club??

If that doesn't smack of rank double standards & blatant hypocricy, then what does?? Being in 'denial' won't solve any problems..

Joe Solaris

What do you define as the difference between an illegal and legal war?

From you what state, there are some wars you like and some you don't. That's fine, but that's not the same as legality.

With regard to the Iraq war, I have to ask you what you think the alternative in 2003 was? By 2003, sanctions had by some estimates killed 500,000 plus Iraqis and done nothing to weaken Saddam's grip on power, and he was a proven menace to his own population and his neighbours. And he had cocked a snoop at all attempts to get him to comply to UN sanctions.

Mistakes were made, most obviously with regard to post war planning, which led to the waste of resource. However it was these mistakes, not the original decision to go to war, that was 'needless'.

"Saddam invaded two countries with weapons also supplied to him by the U.S. Remember Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq in the 1980's?"

True, however the Soviet Union and France did far more to support Saddam that the US did. Jacques Chirac was closely associated with Saddam, entertaining him in Paris in the 1970s.

Oh, and who were the members of Security Council who threatened to veto the 2nd UN resolution? Their hypocrisy, and the acceptance at face value of their arguments by their friends in Western democracies, will go down in history as truly astounding.

And you have to put this in the context of the time (1980s) - Iran was (and is) a danger to Western interests. The US has permanent interests, not permanent friends.

Dapples:

"WHO CARES, if Iran has nuclear weapons?"

I suspect you don't live in Israel. I would care quite a bit if a country (through Hizbollah and Hamas) which has killed hundreds of my fellow citizens and whose president has vowed to destroy my nation, suddenly got the means of doing so.

There's no MAD here for Israel, only AD if Iran gets theirs hands on nukes

@JoeSolaris:
Just a minor quibble, but you only mention India as a state that, not having signed the NPT, is under no obligation not to build nuclear weapons. Israel and Pakistan also never signed.

Iran historically smarts from and routinely winges about 2 severe blows - UK toppling Mosadeq in the 1950s, US backing Israel since the 1940s. So it would be good if some other countries took the lead in nuclear containment.

China is too busy getting rich to be relied on to do anything.

Bombs would miss some targets, kill many innocents, enrage the population for centuries, amount to an Islam-vs-the-rest rallying point.

Sanctions might be arranged to target most sharply the weapons nuclear programme. Economist mentions cargo inspection, which is a good idea, and perhaps the supervisory Revolutionary Guard individuals could find their bank accounts hacked and virus-ridden.

Pity George Bush was ever alive.

Joe Solaris:

"George Bush was an idiot. Iraq was never a serious threat, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no substantial ties to Al-Qaeda terrorists."

George Bush has an IQ of plus 125 and is still alive.

Didn't Saddam invade two countries, use gas on his own people, gassed Iranian soldiers, get very close to having nukes, and threw out UN inspectors in 1998, and refused to let them back in until
under threat of invasion in late 2002? Or was that someone else?

You may call the Iraq war 'illegal', but name another legal one since 1945. Only two, Korea and the 1st Gulf war were UN authorised, and Korea had more to do with Stalin trying to draw the US into a bloody conflict.

And on what definition can you call Pakistan, a democratic country suffering from an insurgency, a 'rogue state'?

Sorry , the horse has left the barn ; feel free to close the door , if it makes you feel better . Now all that's left is Massive Assureded Retaliation . To wit , any bomb , anywhere any time and Iran is an ash heap . Throw in the Norks too : Kim gets all whiney if he feels left out . To get the mullahs' attention , the relevant GPS coordinates of their own personal slice of Armagedon with the last footage from Dr . Strangelove might be useful . The reality of a nuclear Iran is basicly here and so how to deal with nuked-up madmen is the new question . Any ideas ???

The US has a thing about nuclear arms. It's OK for its surrogates, Britain, France, India, Israel, etc. to have them even if some haven't signed the NPT. It's also OK if a hostile country, e.g. Pakistan and North Korea, already has a bomb, because they might fight back if they are attacked.

But any other nation which wants to develop even a basic nuclear fuel enrichment capability must be attacked.

Just a big bully.

Yes, excuse the hyperbole, Mr. Bush is not an "idiot"; more's the pity since he would at least have that in his defence.

Saddam invaded two countries with weapons also supplied to him by the U.S. Remember Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq in the 1980's?

I wrote Pakistan was "on the verge" of being a rogue state. Recent assassinations, coup d'etat and not controlling hugh swathes of its national territory (probably governed by terrorists) do not make for a stable country.

Thank you for not denying the Iraqi war wasted American resources uselessly. "Qui tacet, consentire videtur".

As to illegal wars - although I was not in favour of the Vietnamese war, there was nothing particularly illegal about the defence of South Vietnam (although the secret bombing of its neighbouring countries was clearly illegal). There was nothing illegal about military intervention in Kosovo, nor in the original invasion of Afghanistan in 2002. Instead, the Bush Government willingly and deliberately lied to its own population and the UN about its reasons for invading Iraq.

The Economist has an unfortunate habit of defending Israeli actions against those who dare to criticise it, whether the criticism is merited or not.

This editorial merely reinforces this bias.

it is very puzzling to see how the western - supposedly free and just world, is trying to pressure iran into stopping its nuclear program.
i am no friend of iran’s current regime, nor am i a friend of it’s political system, nevertheless current political actions of western powers convince me more and more of the futility of their just cause.
israel, india, pakistan, all countries not having signed the npt are considered moderate and liberal close friends to west.
the hypocritical double standard, western political regimes are implementing in the region, to defend their common interest, will jeopardize this interest more and more.
whether iran will be attacked or not, directly or by its israeli proxy or anyone else, will only lead to further alienation of the local societies.
i am afraid that we are in for a very tough ride with no clear exit strategy.

Why must you personalize the matter as if ahmadinejad were the obstacle to a settlement? Plenty of reports state that he was for accepting the famous deal, but was caught in a pincer-movement of conservatives and oppositionists who accused him of selling out. If the Green Revolution succeeded, the new President might not be so quick to tweak the West's tail with statements about Israel and the Holocaust, but where is the evidence he would be any more amenable to abandoning the quest for nuclear weapons?

The Economist is as naive as Dwight Chamberlain. They continue to suppport a policy of appeasement which has been proven wrong by history.
In reality there is very little doubt that Israel could easily destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities (we are talking about a country which possesses nuclear weapons).
Sanctions almost never work (Cuba...) and the Economist doesn#t even favor tough ones such as cutting off the gasoline supply!

The U.S. did not arm Saddam Hussein's regime, not even a little. Arms were sold to him by mostly the Russians, followed by the French and Germans. It is true that the U.S. furnished Saddam with intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war. At the time, Iran was (understandably) seen as the greater threat.

But these are past battles, hardly worth re-fighting. The question here is, how to deal with Iran. I guess sanctions are worth trying, but North Korea and pre-war Iraq have shown amply that the rulers can pretty easily shield themselves from their effects, leaving the population to bear the brunt.

Gary Southon wrote:
"Iran is in a region which has Israel, Pakistan and India all with nuclear weapons, none legal. . .[and] Iran is, in fact, the only country to sign up to the NPT,"

Your logic is backwards: Israel, Pakistan, and India's nuclear weapons are legal exactly *because* they never signed the NPT (and therefore have nothig to break), and Iran's are illegal because they *did* sign it, and are now breaking it.

Pres. Obama should wake up to the fact that Ahmadinejad
has in Venezuela's Chavez an ally and partner for the conversion and processing of enriched uranium just a couple of hours flight from Washington.