Power makes men mad

Iran claims to have successfully enriched small quantities of uranium for research purposes, up to a low level of 3.5 per cent, appropriate for use as nuclear fuel in power stations, such as the Bushehr plant now under construction by Russia. Does this Iranian achievement constitute a threat to either the US or Israel? No objective expert thinks so, and certainly not the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its chief Muhammad AlBaradei.

Should the US attack Iran to put a halt to its nuclear program? The usually sober New York Times denounced as “reckless folly” the possibility of such an American war.

Iran has pledged that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes. It co-operates closely with the IAEA. It has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the so-called Additional Protocol, which allows for intrusive and surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities. Under the NPT rules, Iran has every right to master the uranium fuel cycle in order to produce nuclear fuel. Even if it wished to build a nuclear weapon - which is by no means certain - this would require many more years of work.

So why the fuss? Why the hysteria? Rehashing the tired old cliché, General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, declared that a nuclear Iran was a “threat not only to Israel but to the entire free, democratic world”. He was echoing the overheated rhetoric of John Bolton, that finger-wagging neocon scare-monger, surely the worst envoy the United States has ever sent to the United Nations.

The war in Iraq, ruthlessly promoted by pro-Israeli neocons, has resulted in a strategic catastrophe for the United States - with the painful end still not in sight. A war in Iran would set the region on fire, unleash a world-wide wave of anti-US and anti-Israeli terror, expose US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to devastating attack, put intolerable strain on the trans-Atlantic relationship between Europe and the US, endanger the oil flow from the Gulf, and trigger a worldwide economic recession. In the view of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, it could put an end to America's role in the world.

Washington should stop its senseless sabre-rattling and instead engage Tehran in wide-ranging political talks leading to diplomatic relations, security guarantees and a recognition of Iran's important place in the Gulf. Israel, in turn, should talk to Hamas, not seek to destroy it. Peace and integration into the region are of far greater value than a few kilometres of stolen territory on the West Bank.

Commenting on Iran's claim to have enriched uranium, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary declared, “this is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community. Instead they're moving in the wrong direction.” With greater lucidity, he might have offered this advice to his own government and that of its Israeli ally.