The "Iran problem" remains a ticking time-bomb planted at the foundations of international politics. When, if ever, will this bomb explode? Nobody knows, but tension isn't abating.

The United States, Israel, Germany, France, and many other countries assert that: a) Iran is undoubtedly striving to produce nuclear weapons; b) this must not be permitted under any circumstances.

True, it isn't clear exactly what can be done about it. The media have said a thousand times already that the USA will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. But the more they talk of it, the less believable it seems. Bush and his administration are
psychologically broken by their failures in Iraq. And if they bomb the nuclear sites, Iran might well respond by unleashing a real full-scale war against the USA in Iraq. For the US military, this would mean... let's see... a war against a nation of 70 million people. A war with a strong flavor of "jihad against the infidels." Given that the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-87 left about a million dead on either side, it's clear that Iran would be willing to accept high casualties. For the USA, which still can't recall the 50,000 troops lost in Vietnam without a shudder, such a war would be a national disaster. What's more, even if some miracle allows a repeat of the Iraq situation - a blitzkrieg taking the Americans into Tehran - subsequent developments might repeat the Iraq scenario as well! To be more precise: all right, let's say they manage a rapid entry into Tehran - but then they'll face the problem of how to get out.

In short, although the United States is talking tough, it doesn't want to try following through on its threats. And Iran is well aware of that. The American lion's roar doesn't really scare Iran. In general, it's time we all stopped  castigating the "unipolar world"; regardless of whether it's good or bad, the fact is that it simply DOESN'T EXIST. America has sustained a string of significant defeats (mostly its own fault), and can no longer DICTATE its will to any country more powerful than the likes of Georgia.

Russia may well rejoice over the downfall of the "unipolar world." The only problem is that some have started the celebratory banquet already - "while the cat's away, the mice will play" - and it's not at all certain that Russia will be welcome at the banquet, since some of those mice are playing along Russia's
borders.

Iran has even less cause to fear any aggression from Europe. NATO isn't very good at making war, really; in the past 60 years, all it has done is bomb Yugoslavia once - and it greatly fears retaliatory Islamic terrorism at its rear. The French foreign affairs minister made one small mention of war, and spent the next month apologizing.

But why are the USA and Europe so CATEGORICALLY opposed to the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? It's all right for Israel and Pakistan to have them, but not Iran?! Why the double standards?

Indeed, double standards are appropriate in some cases. For example, one person is granted a gun license, while another person's application is denied. Why? Because the second person might have mental health problems, or a criminal record, or neighbors complaining about behavior, and so on.

I'm not trying to draw any literal analogies here; I simply want to say that there are always a great many different conditions. For example, Israel doesn't talk of wiping Iran (or Syria, or any other country) off the map. Israel isn't aiming to conquer new territory; it's got its hands full already with the territories occupied in the course of its earlier victorious wars.

I'm not saying that Israel is the good guy here. What I'm saying is that Israel would NEVER launch a nuclear first strike against any other country - least of all a country like Iran, which doesn't even share borders with Israel.

Although the president of Pakistan isn't threatening to destroy any other countries (not even India!), Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons is a headache for the international community. Everyone's trembling with fear: what would become of those weapons if Islamic funamentalists come to power? And in Iran, Islamic fundamentalists hold power already - all they need now is nuclear weapons.

But let's take an extremely cynical view of things. At the end of the day, what do the USA and Europe care about Iran's threats against Israel? Let Iran and Israel sort it out for themselves. Or is this a case of the far-reaching "Jewish lobby"
putting pressure on Western governments?

No. A "lobby" has nothing to do with it. There was no "Albanian lobby" in Europe - but NATO still went in and protected Albanians from genocide.

No government is altruistic. Politicians have a DUTY to be cynical pragmatists, and they're very good at it. All the same, they know that if an aggressor goes unpunished, it's 100% certain that aggression will escalate. And when it comes to a combination of nuclear aggression and Islamic fundamentalism - we're looking at a full-scale Global Nuclear Jihad, with Israel only the first burning match thrown down an oil-well.

But can Iran and its president really be harboring such obviously INSANE plans?! A nuclear inferno to incinerate the Jews, the Palestinians, the Iranians THEMSELVES - why? "Just because..."

No - such things can't happen! That's right. From the standpoint of regular rational thinking, such things can't happen. But history is full of examples of irrational thinking. It's the mindset of all conquerors obsessed with ultra-important ideas.

Is Ahmadinejad in this category or not? How can we find out? By experiment?! Or would it be better to avert the possibility of such a test? But if so, how could we talk Ahmadinejad out of building the nuclear bomb he doesn't really need at all? (If he is indeed building a bomb.) 

As everyone knows, Russia is in a special position. This is understandable: Russia has many reasons for maintaining relations with Iran. Common borders on the Caspian Sea, oil transit, and so on. But escalating tension also escalates oil prices - so Iran is involuntarily benefiting Russia's budget revenues in that respect.

Finally, Russian society has some well-known hang-ups about the United States: many of us still believe that Russia and the USA are playing a global zero-sum game, so their enemy is our friend, and so on and so forth. True enough. But we should also keep an eye on the main point: politics is a matter of weighing up advantages and dangers.

The Islamic fundamentalists will view Russia as a land of "infidels" anyway, regardless of the state of Russian-American relations. And the unpredictable Iran - if it has a nuclear bomb - would pose a far greater danger to Russia than the entirely predictable NATO and USA with their missile defense system. Back in 1938, Germany was a far greater danger to the West and the USSR than the West and the USSR were to each other.

I hope that Russia is arranging its REALpolitik with a clear understanding of this basic axiom.