I've been trying to understand why Russia, and particularly China, have been backing Iran and Syria so strongly. What is it that gives Iran and Syria such influential roles in Russian and Chinese foreign policy that they are willing to flaunt NATO so badly? If US and Israeli intel sources both agree that Iran has not even decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, why is the US and Isreal on the brink of war with them?

Then I read an article which talks about the New Silk Road that lies in Eurasian oil and natural gas pipelines that the US, Russia, and China have long been fighting over. I had no idea that Iran holds the world's second largest reserves of natural gas, and that China had signed a $120 billion gas exploration and supply deal with Iran -- one which China is seriously banking on as their energy needs are skyrocketing.

I'm not familiar with the writer of the article, but the data seems to be pretty convincing. The beginning of the article seems to interpret some quotes a little loosely and almost made me stop reading, but I think that the thesis the author goes on to explain is quite compelling. I don't think that this is the only reason we are seeing what we are seeing, but it might play quite a role in it.

"Are the Wars in the Middle East and North Africa Really About Oil?" http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/8558

Edit: Citation for US and Israeli intel agreement on Iran not having decided to pursue a nuclear program: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/world/middleeast/iran-inte... Note that President Obama is having MEK removed from the US list of terrorist organizations, perhaps to give them greater freedom to get intel (or simply damage things)

It is also of interest to note that Afghanistan is sitting atop a huge lode of rare earth minerals: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2936

This article is very misleading. While it's true that we have been concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities for quite a long time, the article omits several concentrated efforts that have prevented the country from developing nuclear capabilities over the years. For example, in the late eighties, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor before its completion. If Israel's bombing or other efforts hadn't been carried out over the years, Iran would have nuclear capability. Several times over the last 25 years, Iran has in fact been close to having nuclear capabilities.

I'm not crying foul on what you've stated, but I'd be interested in reading some accounts of those efforts.

The one attack that I thought was against Iran was actually against Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

It's unfortunate that Israel initiated a nuclear arms race in the region. Israel smuggled nuclear technology from the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lekem), tried to sell nukes to apartheid South Africa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-afr...), and has refused to sign the the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That doesn't mean the current threat isn't real. This is an implied cum hoc fallacy.

You're quite right! In fact the one reliable way to be sure the current threat isn't real is to invade.

Once we've invaded, then we can also say, "Well, they would have been a threat had we not invaded," if we don't find anything! It's fool-proof!

Lol. Very true.

I don't know if the threat is credible or not. I suspect it is, given Stuxnet, but I confess I don't have access to military intelligence and probably wouldn't know what to make of it if I did.

I just take issue with the "this was wrong before so it must be wrong now" implication.

So the Iran nuclear threat is a 'cry wolf' for 33 years.

Two side notes:

- The Iran has a light water reactor that is not suited for breeding a bomb. You need a Russian type graphite moderated reactor, or even better a cold heavy water reactor for this.

- Enrichment is a requirement of this reactor type, but enrichment is the slowest and most expensive way for producing the bomb. It would be stupid to use centrifuges for enrichment, if you can produce heavy water much cheaper to breed a bomb.

This doesn't even belong on the main page.

Non print link: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminen...

Honestly I think the biggest nuclear threat comes from:

* US * Russia * France * China

I don't see why one country in the posession of nuclear weapons is less a threat than any other.

Someone please explain that to me.

Especially since I know of only one (1) country that actually used nuclear weapons in war....

Why can none of none of these countries make H-bombs?