NPT, Iran & Nuclear Weapons

[Michael]

On the Issue of Nuclear Weapons and Iran in Particular

One hears many statements made by western politicians about the horrific dangers of Iran producing a nuclear weapon. I respectfully submit that this is nothing more than political posturing and/or an emotive reaction that is not based on any rational assessment of the facts. If one rationally considers all the relevant data on the topic, I think it becomes obvious that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be more likely increase the chances of peace in the Middle East, not reduce it. And anything that can increase the chances of peace in the Middle East is something that ought to be considered as a positive.

First and foremost, there is the issue of imbalance. The only known usage of a nuclear weapon against a human target was undertaken by one nation that held a monopoly (at the time) on nuclear weapons. On this basis, it is rational to assert that nuclear weapons are most likely to be used in situations where there is an asymmetric balance of power - particularly with respect to the possession of nuclear weapons. The corollary of this general observation is that nuclear weapons are least likely to be used in situations where there is a balance of power - particularly with respect to nuclear weapons. This latter aspect is commonly known as the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - the idea being that any use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear armed nation will result in the catastrophic destruction of both nations (and most of the planet as well). Once the Soviet Union broke the US monopoly on nuclear weapons, a nuclear 'stalemate' essentially existed between the USSR and the USA. While the relationship between the USSR and the USA was hardly described as a peaceful one, it never did descend into actual war. I would assert that this was primarily due to the nuclear stalemate of MAD made the idea of war between USSR and USA to be completely unwinnable and thus unthinkable for either side.

An even more interesting example of a nuclear balance of power 'promoting' peaceful engagement is in the Indian sub-continent where nuclear armed Pakistan stands off against nuclear armed India. It is to be noted that India and Pakistan fought two wars against each other since 1947 (1965 & 1971) and have many mutual conflicts that long predate the essential creation of both modern countries in 1947. India went nuclear in 1974 - Pakistan sometime in the 1990s. Now there is still endless tension between India and Pakistan, but the direct threat of war between the two has decreased noticeably since the advent of the nuclear stalemate there. Now in a crisis, both governments tend to work together to 'defuse' the situation, rather than to enflame it. This was certainly not the case prior to the establishment of a nuclear stalemate and modern diplomatic relations between the two.

The relationship between China and India (post 1945) follows a similar pattern - a couple of 'short but hot' conflicts along their border regions in the early years, but with both nations going nuclear, the risk of war between them has been reduced and both countries now have 'normal' diplomatic relations.

Looking at the Middle East, where the Arabs and Israelis have fought a couple of wars as well (1967 & 1973),
we are faced with an 'asymmetrical' nuclear situation (from a regional perspective) where Israel has nuclear weapons and no other regional power does. Past history suggests that this is a potentially dangerous situation with respect to nuclear weapons. The same 'history of nuclear weapons' suggests that this region will likely only become 'more peaceful', with normal diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran, when a nuclear stalemate becomes established between the two. So long as a nuclear imbalance is in effect, it is reasonable to postulate that instability in the region is quite likely to continue.

As for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Bush Administration's formal nuclear agreement with India, signed into law by the US Congress in 2008 makes a mockery of the principles of the NPT and essentially acknowledges zero sanction against India for their original 'renegade' nuclear status (and refusal to sign the NPT). Likewise with Israel, another nation that has 'renegade' nuclear status (and refused to sign the NPT) and also happens to be the largest recipient of US aid money every year for the last forty years.

With these significant precedents, I assert that the US government's approach to the possibility of the existence of an Iranian nuclear program can only be described as either inconsistent or arbitrary according to the principle of the rule of law. I conclude that from an entirely 'realist' perspective, that the USA has no moral authority to hinder a possible Iranian nuclear program, and that an Iranian nuclear program, if it were to exist, would more likely contribute to an increase in peaceful relations in the Middle Eastern region, than if the present situation is permitted to continue.

[dilettante]

While I don't feel well informed enough to come down strongly on whether or not the US should attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons I do have a problem with this particular bit of logic:


...The only known usage of a nuclear weapon against a human target was undertaken by one nation that held a monopoly (at the time) on nuclear weapons. On this basis, it is rational to assert that nuclear weapons are most likely to be used in situations where there is an asymmetric balance of power - particularly with respect to the possession of nuclear weapons. The corollary of this general observation is that nuclear weapons are least likely to be used in situations where there is a balance of power - particularly with respect to nuclear weapons.

First, building anything like this kind of general rule about when nukes are "likely" to be used based on the the single time they were used in the past (sample-size = 1) strikes me as absurd. Especially given the outrageous, unprecedented, and (thankfully) unrepeated environmental situation that led up to that single deployment. It simply isn't enough to go on. At the very least, one should factor in the times that nuclear weapons have not been used even when one nation had them and their enemies did not. Case in point, Israel certainly had nukes during the 1973 war, it's opponents did not, and yet there were no mushroom clouds. Possibly the same for the 1967 war (depending on when Israel had a working nuke).

Second, sample-size aside for the moment, this sort of general rule making ignores the influence of context. I find it ridiculous to meaningfully compare the situation between the US and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII with the situation between Israel and Iran. We're talking about vastly different cultures, engaged in very different kinds of disputes, at very different times in history. We're also talking about an entirely new class of nuclear weapon.

In short, setting up a M.A.D. situation in the M.E. might make sense, but citing Hiroshima doesn't add anything to the argument (at least IMO).



On a completely different track, from a practical standpoint, rather than a one looking at 'moral authority', I suspect that if Iran gets close to developing a nuclear weapon of their own, Israel will (quite literally) go ballistic. The US threatening to cut off money and weapon's supplies isn't going to stop them in that scenario; if anything it would only prompt them to act sooner rather than later so that their hardware will be up to date.
My reasoning here runs thus:
1) If Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel WILL attack them.
2) The US (and/or Europe) have neither the stomach (nor possibly the resources) to prevent this, given the depth of Israeli feeling on the matter; I.E. sanctions and embargoes won't do it and we aren't willing to use force.
3) Therefore, the only way to prevent that conflict is to convince Iran not to develop a nuke.

[Greendruid]

Unfortunately, and as usual, I agree with both Michael and Dilletante for two very different reasons.

In favour of Michael's argument there is certainly something to be said for an opponent having some equalising force at its disposal when considering the possibility of attacking that opponent. Citing Hiroshima (and you both seem to have forgotten about Nagasaki) as a case in point may be a totally different situation but I will agree with Michael that it is the only sample we (thankfully) have to work with here.

In favour of Dilletante's argument, I concur that the situation of cultural/religious interactions and the time in history are entirely different this time around. This indeed may be sufficient to render the logic employed in Michael's argument null and void.

If neither of you have yet, you should both take a look at Fog of War (http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/indexFlash.html) and tell me what you think of his description of what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Click on his chilling quote from 1962 - that one shocked me. I think that the potential for miscommunication among humans, despite having amazing technology for transmitting and receiving such across the globe is still present. I think that the power of religion and culture to whip people up into blind zeal with the thought that the only answer is X must still be held as part of the human equation. "Because God told us to" is still a reasonable answer to a completely rational person. It is the extremists of the world that will always exist that makes the thought of this technology reaching the wrong people horrifying. This is why I believe that all nuclear technology should be disabled. The trick is not only convincing Iran and North Korea not to build it, but also dismantling the capabilities of those who have it already built. This is within our capacity as human beings to reason through - unfortunately, this path is not one shared by those whose greed outweighs their love of peace.

[Michael]

Dilettante, I'll address your other point later.

My reasoning here runs thus:
1) If Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel WILL attack them.
2) The US (and/or Europe) have neither the stomach (nor possibly the resources) to prevent this, given the depth of Israeli feeling on the matter; I.E. sanctions and embargoes won't do it and we aren't willing to use force.
3) Therefore, the only way to prevent that conflict is to convince Iran not to develop a nuke.
The flaw with this argument is that if Israel attacks ANYONE, they can only do it using US taxpayer paid military equipment and US taxpayer funded military forces.

Ergo, the US has 100% control over the usage of the Israeli military. Pretending otherwise is a willful deception.

For all intents and purposes, the ENTIRE annual funding of the Israeli Air Force is paid for by US taxpayers. Without US taxpayer subsidies, Israel wouldn't have an Air Force to attack Iran with.

[andrewl]

.
3) Therefore, the only way to prevent that conflict is to convince Iran not to develop a nuke.

Or alternatively to convince Israel to accept a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew

[Americano]

Or alternatively to convince Israel to accept a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew

Too logical and not in line with US hegemony.

[Michael]

3) Therefore, the only way to prevent that conflict is to convince Iran not to develop a nuke.

Or alternatively to convince Israel to accept a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew
Of the two, it might be relevant to note that the US has actual influence over only one of the two actors involved - Israel. Seems odd to expect the US could/should get an 'enemy' to do US bidding, but no expectation that the US might get its closest 'ally' to refrain from recklessly causing war? :ummm:

Can we perhaps have a US policy that serves US interests instead of just being dictated by the hardest of hardline rightwingers in Israel?

Btw, I suspect that requiring Iran to comply with some act and not requiring Israel to comply with some act is a recipe chosen because it is non-functional.

It may also be relevant to note here that the traditional negotiating position of Israel and the USA on this topic serves the same purpose - to prevent negotiations.

Looks like the same path that the US used to trick US citizens into supporting the attack on Iraq.

When the goal is war, negotiations or engagement with the other side is absurd. That's where we are at. All the media and elites are trying to create a situation so they can say "Iran won't negotiate" - so they can have the war that they desire. This is the obvious conclusion based on present US policy.

[dilettante]

The flaw with this argument is that if Israel attacks ANYONE, they can only do it using US taxpayer paid military equipment and US taxpayer funded military forces.

Ergo, the US has 100% control over the usage of the Israeli military. Pretending otherwise is a willful deception.

This doesn't follow. True, the US paid for the equipment, but that doesn't mean that the US therefore controls it. It now belongs to Israel.

If I buy you a gun and give it to you, the fact that I was the one who paid for it doesn't mean that I have some special power over how you can use it. I can threaten not to buy you any more guns in the future, but that does nothing to prevent you from using the one I've already given you however you darn well please. And its a lot cheaper for you to keep the gun you already have in working order (especially if you know you have to) than it is to buy a new gun.


For all intents and purposes, the ENTIRE annual funding of the Israeli Air Force is paid for by US taxpayers. Without US taxpayer subsidies, Israel wouldn't have an Air Force to attack Iran with.

Two thoughts:
1) Again, we've already bought them the airforce; cutting off their funding would eventually make that airforce useless, but in the meantime they still have it and may well interpret a termination of US funding as a sign that this is there last (and only) chance to destroy Iran's nascent nuclear ambitions while their military is intact.
2) Regardless of its moral correctness, having the US cut off ALL defense funding to Israel because they might attack Iranian nuclear facilities is unrealistic and any attempt would be political suicide.

I'm not arguing that the US should fund Israel or that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. Merely point out that for the immediate future the US will fund Israel (this may change eventually, but not today) and that as long as they have the capability (which they do and will for some time to come) they will respond violently to an Iranian nuclear program.
Ergo, preventing that program prevents the violence.

[dilettante]

Or alternatively to convince Israel to accept a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew

Based on my reading of Israeli politics and conversations with the few Israelis I've known (admittedly, only marginal evidence) there is practically NO chance that Israel will accept a nuclear Iran.
They consider it to be literally a matter of life and death, and therefore beyond the realm of negotiation or bargaining.

Of the two, it might be relevant to note that the US has actual influence over only one of the two actors involved - Israel. Seems odd to expect the US could/should get an 'enemy' to do US bidding, but no expectation that the US might get its closest 'ally' to refrain from recklessly causing war?

When it comes to survival, influence doesn't matter. The US has more "pull" with Israel, but for the Israelis the issue is far, far more serious than it is for Iran. Iran stands to gain/lose prestige and regional influence; Israel (believes) that it stands to gain or lose life itself.

[Michael]

This doesn't follow. True, the US paid for the equipment, but that doesn't mean that the US therefore controls it. It now belongs to Israel.
Indeed, the goods belong to Israel and US can't take the money back. That's true.

But Israel is completely addicted to the annual subsidy. The threat of cutting off that subsidy if Israel doesn't behave is definitely in the realm of theoretical possibility for US policy makers.

That it is absurd to even consider given US political 'sacred cows' is beside the point - and just shows how absurd it is to insist that 'sacred cows' in USA and Israel must be protected, therefore Iran's 'sacred cow' must be slaughtered. That may be logical, but not exactly wise policy.

Bottom line is that US does have a major leverage point of control over Israel. That US chooses not to use this does not make this point of control evaporate into nothingness. Its there and the fact that the US doesn't use this leverage is obvious to observers paying attention (like Israels, Iranians, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, etc).

In reality, the US is only pretending that they have no leverage over Israel. That's the propaganda bullshit that will be sold by the US media & politicians to the US voters. In reality, the US government has enormous leverage over Israel and chooses not to use it at all (very lousy return on the US taxpayer's investment in Israel that is!).

[Michael]

Based on my reading of Israeli politics and conversations with the few Israelis I've known (admittedly, only marginal evidence) there is practically NO chance that Israel will accept a nuclear Iran.
They consider it to be literally a matter of life and death, and therefore beyond the realm of negotiation or bargaining.
It is anecdotes like this that has (over the years) turned me against Israel entirely.

I used to be studiously balanced on any issue involving Israel. Even if over time, the facts showed that Israel was the aggressor nation, I was still willing to cut some slack to Israel, given the circumstances. I lost that a few years ago. Between the obnoxious official policy of the Israeli government and obnoxious statements by Israeli citizens, I have no sympathy for their plight at all. They appear to (now) deserve everything the Arabs throw at them.

[andrewl]

Based on my reading of Israeli politics and conversations with the few Israelis I've known (admittedly, only marginal evidence) there is practically NO chance that Israel will accept a nuclear Iran.
They consider it to be literally a matter of life and death, and therefore beyond the realm of negotiation or bargaining.

I believe it. But my sense is also that there is no chance Iran will negotiate their right to enrich uranium.

Andrew

[dilettante]

Indeed, the goods belong to Israel and US can't take the money back. That's true.

But Israel is completely addicted to the annual subsidy. The threat of cutting off that subsidy if Israel doesn't behave is definitely in the realm of theoretical possibility for US policy makers.

That it is absurd to even consider given US political 'sacred cows' is beside the point - and just shows how absurd it is to insist that 'sacred cows' in USA and Israel must be protected, therefore Iran's 'sacred cow' must be slaughtered. That may be logical, but not exactly wise policy.

Bottom line is that US does have a major leverage point of control over Israel. That US chooses not to use this does not make this point of control evaporate into nothingness. Its there and the fact that the US doesn't use this leverage is obvious to observers paying attention (like Israels, Iranians, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, etc).

In reality, the US is only pretending that they have no leverage over Israel. That's the propaganda bullshit that will be sold by the US media & politicians to the US voters. In reality, the US government has enormous leverage over Israel and chooses not to use it at all (very lousy return on the US taxpayer's investment in Israel that is!).

It is anecdotes like this that has (over the years) turned me against Israel entirely.

I used to be studiously balanced on any issue involving Israel. Even if over time, the facts showed that Israel was the aggressor nation, I was still willing to cut some slack to Israel, given the circumstances. I lost that a few years ago. Between the obnoxious official policy of the Israeli government and obnoxious statements by Israeli citizens, I have no sympathy for their plight at all. They appear to (now) deserve everything the Arabs throw at them.

I believe it. But my sense is also that there is no chance Iran will negotiate their right to enrich uranium.

Andrew


As I said, it isn't my intention to defend the Israeli mindset or past (or current) US policy wrt the Middle East more generally. But it seems to me that, from a realist perspective, there are two ways to avoid a major Middle Eastern flare up that could easily have a devastating impact on the interests of the US (along with those of a great other nations):

(1) Iran must [be made to] abandon its nuclear program.
(2) Israel must [be made to] accept a nuclear Iran.

Of the two, my limited experiences indicates that the first is more likely to be an obtainable goal and thus should be pursued, at least in the short term. The second should also be pursued, but I suspect efforts on that score will not show fruit for some time.

Perhaps Israel can eventually be convinced, through US leverage or by some other means, that they could survive and should accept a nuclear Iran. But such possibilities are meaningless if Iran goes nuclear (or gets to the verge) before that day comes.

[andrewl]

As I said, it isn't my intention to defend the Israeli mindset or past (or current) US policy wrt the Middle East more generally. But it seems to me that, from a realist perspective, there are two ways to avoid a major Middle Eastern flare up that could easily have a devastating impact on the interests of the US (along with those of a great other nations):

(1) Iran must [be made to] abandon its nuclear program.
(2) Israel must [be made to] accept a nuclear Iran.

Of the two, my limited experiences indicates that the first is more likely to be an obtainable goal and thus should be pursued, at least in the short term. The second should also be pursued, but I suspect efforts on that score will not show fruit for some time.

Perhaps Israel can eventually be convinced, through US leverage or by some other means, that they could survive and should accept a nuclear Iran. But such possibilities are meaningless if Iran goes nuclear (or gets to the verge) before that day comes.

I guess i just don't see how getting Iran to abandon their inalienable rights is any less an obstacle to convincing israel to accept a nuclear iran.

Seems we are headed for another stupid war, which is hardly surprising.

Andrew

[Michael]

As I said, it isn't my intention to defend the Israeli mindset or past (or current) US policy wrt the Middle East more generally.

That's a wise plan. ;)

But it seems to me that, from a realist perspective, there are two ways to avoid a major Middle Eastern flare up that could easily have a devastating impact on the interests of the US (along with those of a great other nations):

(1) Iran must [be made to] abandon its nuclear program.
(2) Israel must [be made to] accept a nuclear Iran.

Of the two, my limited experiences indicates that the first is more likely to be an obtainable goal and thus should be pursued, at least in the short term. The second should also be pursued, but I suspect efforts on that score will not show fruit for some time.
My reading of the issue is the reverse. The way I see it is that no one has any leverage at all to make Iran bend on this issue. From any realist perspective, Iran would be foolish to bend on this issue - they have no need to do so at all (and quite likely won't).

It is only in the US-Israel side is there theoretical room to move since they are the ones standing on an unprincipled posture that isn't well supported by any theory or past practice (and the US has massive leverage over Israel if they choose to use it).

Thus, from a realist perspective, it is the Israeli/US position that needs to bend.

Perhaps Israel can eventually be convinced, through US leverage or by some other means, that they could survive and should accept a nuclear Iran. But such possibilities are meaningless if Iran goes nuclear (or gets to the verge) before that day comes.
Do you believe Israel has the right to hold the world hostage to its intemperate and hypocritical demands?

Iran isn't doing anything that Israel hasn't already done.

Let us remember that Israel is in possession of an illegal nuclear arsenal. The Israelis are in no position to lecture anyone about nukes at all.

[Michael]

Btw, as clarification of my point about not trusting Israel, my view of Israel used to be the same as my view of the USA - that is to say, both states are known to consistently and constantly engage in illegal actions and (between the two of them) constitute the single largest threat to all peace-loving persons on the planet.

The difference between Israel and USA in my eyes is that, in my experience of dealing with Americans, the vast majority of them appear to be genuinely horrified as to what the US Government does in their name. I do not see the same thing with Israelis (though my experience with them is much less than with Americans). The Israelis I've met all seem to be very proud of the obnoxious things that the Israeli government has done.

Thus, for the USA, I draw a distinction between the "evil" US Government and "non-evil" American people. I can't justify the same distinction between the Israeli Government and Israeli citizens (since there doesn't appear to be much difference of opinion there at all).

[dilettante]

My reading of the issue is the reverse. The way I see it is that no one has any leverage at all to make Iran bend on this issue. From any realist perspective, Iran would be foolish to bend on this issue - they have no need to do so at all (and quite likely won't).

It is only in the US-Israel side is there theoretical room to move since they are the ones standing on an unprincipled posture that isn't well supported by any theory or past practice (and the US has massive leverage over Israel if they choose to use it).

Thus, from a realist perspective, it is the Israeli/US position that needs to bend.

I suppose this comes down to a different perceptions of the situation But, I'm hardly an expert on Middle Eastern cultures or foreign relations, so my reading of the situation may well be lacking.
Thankfully such decisions are made by people better informed than I.


Do you believe Israel has the right to hold the world hostage to its intemperate and hypocritical demands?

Iran isn't doing anything that Israel hasn't already done.

Let us remember that Israel is in possession of an illegal nuclear arsenal. The Israelis are in no position to lecture anyone about nukes at all.

My response was built entirely around a pragmatic analysis. Morally, Israel has much to answer for, and its stance on the nuclear issue does ring of open hypocrisy.
That said, in this situation, it seems more important that the US (and other powers) prioritize the prevention of a Middle Eastern war over standing on principle.

[Michael]

Getting back to an earlier raised point...

First, building anything like this kind of general rule about when nukes are "likely" to be used based on the the single time they were used in the past (sample-size = 1) strikes me as absurd. Especially given the outrageous, unprecedented, and (thankfully) unrepeated environmental situation that led up to that single deployment. It simply isn't enough to go on. At the very least, one should factor in the times that nuclear weapons have not been used even when one nation had them and their enemies did not. Case in point, Israel certainly had nukes during the 1973 war, it's opponents did not, and yet there were no mushroom clouds. Possibly the same for the 1967 war (depending on when Israel had a working nuke).

First of all, as Greendruid correctly pointed out, the "known sample size" is actually "2" not "1". And both have the same characteristics.

Secondly, the fact that Israel "won" both the 1967 and 1973 engagements (and with relative ease) is sufficient reason to "not use nukes" (if they had them at that time). Ergo, this point is moot. Indeed, a negative point is a very hard one to make. ;)

Now while agree that a sample set of "2" is much too small to make any statistical inference, I respectfully submit that it is the only sample set we have and thus the data is relevant, regardless how (thankfully) small the data set is.

Second, sample-size aside for the moment, this sort of general rule making ignores the influence of context. I find it ridiculous to meaningfully compare the situation between the US and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII with the situation between Israel and Iran. We're talking about vastly different cultures, engaged in very different kinds of disputes, at very different times in history. We're also talking about an entirely new class of nuclear weapon.

In short, setting up a M.A.D. situation in the M.E. might make sense, but citing Hiroshima doesn't add anything to the argument (at least IMO).
I think the fact that the only known usage of a nuke weapon occured under an asymmetrical nuclear balance is very relevant to the issue.

If you insist on 'context' then it is to be noted that US political/pop-culture rhetoric often has included nuclear weapons threats against Iran ("nuke Iran" was a common 'button' I remember from the 1980s). No formal US threats here, but lots of not-so-subtle ones.

That being said, my entire argument has been delivered with a dispassionate avoidance of 'context'. I didn't address the issues of right and propriety in the India vs Pakistan wars, nor did I address the issue of the Cold War itself (which I believe the US was the likely initiator of) or any other issue of 'fair and balance', 'context' or bias. I just laid out the simple facts known about nuke weapons and who has them and drew conclusions from that alone.

Indeed, my analysis is drawn entirely from a 'realist' perspective. I'm not presuming to judge 'right or wrong'. Indeed, that's a whole different topic. I'm concerned with world peace and nuke weapons here. That issue is too important to let petty emotional favortisms to get in the way. :)

[Michael]

I suppose this comes down to a different perceptions of the situation But, I'm hardly an expert on Middle Eastern cultures or foreign relations, so my reading of the situation may well be lacking.
Thankfully such decisions are made by people better informed than I.
Well, I'm not so sure about that.

The ignorance I've seen demonstrated about the Middle East in particular by senior American (and European) politicians scares the heck out of me.

And as the whole issue of Iraq has shown over the last six years is that some of us 'non-experts' discussing these issues on these kinds of forums have been shown to demonstrate a substantially correct analysis of Middle Eastern affairs when professional US government analysis comes up short of the mark. That is to say, faith in the government experts is not something I have much of these days - especially on the issue of Middle Eastern politics!

My response was built entirely around a pragmatic analysis. Morally, Israel has much to answer for, and its stance on the nuclear issue does ring of open hypocrisy.
That said, in this situation, it seems more important that the US (and other powers) prioritize the prevention of a Middle Eastern war over standing on principle.
No danger of that. Iran is the only actor standing on principle in this issue. They believe they have the sovereign right to determine their own affairs - within the realm of their own state. That's a reasonable and rational principle that is supported by the UN Charter.

The US and Israel are standing only on the principle of "might is right" once you strip away all the hypocritical and self-serving rhetoric.

If this one was to go to "arbitration" with a neutral judge, I have no doubt that Iran would win the case. But of course, that's not going to happen. I agree that there is extreme difficulty in getting the US/Israel to accept reality here and that may potentially cause a war.

But if that war comes, it will come because US and/or Israel believes that their "might makes right" and that's a principle I can never accept because that is not a "just war".