Iran nuclear debate - what's it all about?

I have been trying to post this for a few days, simply because I was getting fed up with watching very generalised reporting about this on TV that didn't actually explain any of the reasoning behind why the UK, US and others are getting in such a strop about Iran and their nuclear dealings.

So, this link gives a lowdown from the BBC, providing some useful background to the issue.

On the BBC programme Newsnight on 18/01/06, reporter Mark Urban interviewed Robert Joseph, US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, who has been touring Europe, talking up support for action against Iran.

He said: "My view is that Iran is aggressively pursuing the capability to produce enriched uranium, the fissile material which can be used for nuclear weapons."

I can't vouch for the 'aggressive' bit, however I understand Iran have finally been quite clear they do indeed want to produce enriched uranium. The second part of that sentence would have been more balanced if it said 'can be used for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. That's the problem with fissile material folks, you can make energy or you can make bombs. Iran say they want energy.

He continued, "I believe it is a nuclear weapons programme and I believe that there are indications of weaponisation which the IAEA is pursuing with Iran."

Well, we are not privy to this information yet it seems. However we can be pretty certain Bush has this Joseph guy is in this job because he talks up the game. He is seemingly renowned for being a militarist, an advocate of attack first, ask questions later.

Perhaps the US, after all, have learned some lessons over abandoning diplomacy as a prequel to invading Iraq. It seems to me there is an air of 'aggressive' diplomacy going on from the US now, keen to show they will use the right channels, but not sounding very balanced.

At least acknowledging the concept of trust has to figure somewhere in international relations surely? Because if you deny the concept of trust so completely as the US seems wont to do, will you ever be satisfied unless you've planted your boots on everything anyone else has?

If Robert Joseph is wandering around the world saying he believes Iran are 'weaponising', how many IAEA or 'independent' inspections is it going to take to convince the US otherwise? Lack of evidence (excluding the fictitious variety) didn't stop the invasion of Iraq, did it?

War-mongers like Joseph deal in fiction - and I wonder how long it will be before more people see this all-encompassing 'war on terror' for what it is - damaging, base gun-waving at everybody else, of the 'come and have a go' variety. I believe we need to expose these people for 'crying wolf' while they still are because, at some point, their doctrine of accusing others becomes a self-fulfilling prohecy. Because how many people can one reasonably expect to piss off before they turn around and say 'no more'? Simply put, fuelling conflict is their aim - and at the moment they are making a pretty good job of it.