The last thing I want to see is Iran developing a nuclear weapon. But then, the last thing I wanted to see was India and Pakistan with nuclear weapons, not to mention Israel and North Korea. In fact, I don't really want to see anyone with nuclear weapons, and that includes the longstanding members of the nuclear club including the United States, Russia, France, the UK, and so forth.

That makes the current stand against Iran particularly hypocritical. In France, nearly 80% of electricity is generated by nuclear power, and we all remember how the nuclear industry in the U.S. fought tooth and nail against environmentalists concerned about a nuclear accident--even after Three Mile Island and Chornobyl. To make matters worse, the U.S., by way of UN ambassador John Bolton, fought against including any references to nuclear disarmament in the revisions to UN governing documents, despite the fact that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty calls for eventual disarmament--a goal which the U.S. and other nuclear powers have tried to make us forget about.

Iran's leaders may or may not be lying when they say that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. But they have a good point when they argue that if other countries have the right to use nuclear power, they do too. What is the argument against this, other than bullying by the world's most powerful nations? And how can it be justified on any moral grounds?

I close with a quote from a NY Times article a few days ago, by reporter David S. Cloud: "The Pentagon is preparing new guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons that foresee possible pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups or nations planning to use unconventional weapons against the United States." Like, for example, Iraq when the CIA said it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD?