The current number one international dispute is that of the heated exchange taking place between the United States and Iran. The US has accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear program for the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied this, instead claiming that the program is there for peaceful, civilian purposes. What lies at the heart of this dispute is the construction of a 1,000 Mega-watt nuclear power plant in Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast. The plant is being built by the Russians, who have announced that construction has been completed though about 1,000 specialists are still working on the plant to get it ready for start up. According to Iran, a deal has very recently been signed with Russia that states Russia will supply Iran with the nuclear fuel for the plant, and that Iran must return the used fuel to Russia after about a decade.
America is saying that with the plant complete Iran will be able to use the spent nuclear fuel and reprocess it so that it can be used in a nuclear bomb. Indeed, there have been suggestions that the current low level of enriched uranium is an over or understatement of Iran's true development, depending on who you talk to. The US cites Iran's leadership as being an extremist regime and thus having the desire to acquire nuclear weapons so that it can expand its supposedly hegemonic influence in the region, with one possible outcome being an attack on Israel (not that I personally trust Ayatollah Bush of the neo-liberal school of secular Jihad). Iran and Russia, by signing this nuclear fuel deal, are saying that this will not be the case as the fuel will be returned to Russia once it has been used.
So are we on the road to another 10 year plan to weaken, then annexe another Middle Eastern country? The public face of the CIA - www.globalsecurity.org, currently maintains that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon, but could enrich fissile material at some time in 2006 - a fact strongly contested by many pro-Iranian groups. Many of these have collectively advocated that Iran does not even today have such capability, that such stances are warmongering or political power-play. In either case, Article 5 of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) guarantees the right for nations to use nuclear materials for energy purposes, for which they should be receiving expert assistance in doing so. Also, if we take the case of North Korea, or the long history of conflict between Pakistan and India, we have seen that two opposing sides with nuclear capability are far less likely to go to war with each other due to the mere threat of mass destruction due to the well-known doctrine of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (or MAD). So, nuclear weapons are actually conducive to regional and diplomatic stability. I'll be damned.
However I can't give everyone nuclear weapons to stop a war - as much as I'd like to. What I would like to do is congratulate those of you that have any semblance of a heart left, and aren't completely desensitised after all the death and suffering in the world to stop wanting change, but what is there left to do? Rallies and marches don't effect change, and that is what we need. Change. Change from policies of neo-colonialism towards greater accountability of our governments to make sure they keep within the line. Change on national, international or trans-national levels requires governance, and that is what rulers are for. If they will not help, then they admit to standing in the way of progress, and we cannot let this happen, can we? Directly, indirectly, through blackmail, manipulation or (my favourite) extortion, we need to put our personal interests behind the collective will to do that which is right. Let's not be fooled. If they invade again and cause more loss of life, the system must be jerked back in its rightful place. If that doesn't work, I say, tear the whole damn system down.
