More Nukes

Hi all - a brace of issues for your attention.

Firstly, an article by M. D. Nalapat alleging China's proliferation of nuclear arms to states including Myanmar and Bangladesh, as well as Pakistan and North Korea. Worrying stuff, but I still have the rather quaint and naive belief that nukes are a defensive weapon at best. They're no good for invading a country or trying to rob someone, and nuclear-backed belligerence is both hard to believe and hard to pull off; the first country to take international security to such depths would be cast out by its friends and neighbours. No country would want such a danger anywhere around, either from the threat of fallout from that state's nuclear attacks, or from the attacks against it. So a more nuclear world doesn't bring us close enough to Armageddon that I really start worrying. But I digress...

Secondly, Iran. We have a worrying situation, with hawks in the US and, oddly enough, France, looking for trouble to fix by talking tough in public (can't remember that one working often).

The issue of Iran's nuclear program has been up in front of the UN Security Council, which came up with little of substance about it, and President Ahmadinejad, not one to shy away from controversy, visited the US for some highly publicised engagements. That, unsurprisingly, didn't help. Iran is emboldened not by its weapons, which probably won't exist for at least another 10 years (see past blog entries), but by the international inability to do anything about its rather blatant program. It's strengthening its friendship with Russia while mocking the seeming inability of the US, currently mired in Iraq, to follow up on Iran's nuclear grandstanding. The Bush administration is talking of compromise, while drawing attention to its willingness to defend Israel (which President Ahmadinejad has spoken of wanting wiped off the map). France, meanwhile, is continuing the tough talk, this time with worries about the scale of the Iranian program (more centrifuges), while the Iranians have been demanding explanations.

So a lot to think about there, and a lot to hint at inaction: a lack of consensus at the UN, powerful friends (Russia and China), military over-stretching and still a lot of time before any Iran gets their nukes. And beyond that, the question of whether a nuclear Iran would be the day of reckoning the doom-mongers seem to think: much as Ahmadinejad would like Israel off the map, he wouldn't risk the destruction of Tehran for that aim (whether done by enabling terrorists or otherwise). Even if he wanted to it's highly unlikely the Iranian military and senior government would actually let him; don't forget that Jerusalem is holy for Muslims too, and that they wouldn't like the deaths of Palestinians on their hands.

Anyway - I'm digressing again. The main threat here, and one I take more seriously than any threat from Iran, is the threat to Iran. I know I've just written how unlikely that is, but the main danger is that the question of HOW an attack on Iran could be done would replace the question of IF it should be done. The US military will, at some point, be asked for suggestions, if it hasn't already. So the first credible plan from the US, along the lines of a hit-and-run, might actually be put to the test: all the questions about whether that's wise would be dropped in favour of showing the world that the US isn't impotent after all, and bringing Iran down a notch. That's the main danger, from my perspective.

Besides the international politics, all's well. At the weekend I'm back to Mseno, this time with a small group of tango dancers. And tomorrow's the milonga at the Jam Cafe - I'm back as DJ this month (Jan took last month). Work's hard, but still interesting.