The Jerusalem Post has revealed that Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, quoting Israeli intelligence, has stated that Iran could go nuclear within a year, bringing much of the world’s concerns over confrontation with Tehran into a very real possibility.  Critics will argue that Iran is only after peaceful nuclear technology, but I find it hard to believe that any country as hostile and arrogant as Iran could truly desire nuclear technology for any reason other than its military might.

After all, Iran has long-range missiles capable of striking not just Israel, but also Western Europe.  This may not be an eye-opener to the European states, though I hope that our ally Britain will at least take a hard line with the Iranians.  If the British would listen to their true leaders, perhaps they could emerge from the chains of the EU and Islamism that have been dragging them down lately.  A tip of the hat to Douglas Murray who I believe has the answers to many of Britain’s current woes.

In any case–Iran is poised on the verge of a real showdown with Israel and the West.  Nuclear weaponry would be a disaster in the hands of the mullahs and lunatic fringe that calls itself the Iranian government.  Once upon a time, Iran could have become a modern, peaceful state, but under this regime I am afraid this will never be the case.

In related news, Financial Times reports that European companies are attempting to broker a gas deal with Tehran, despite US led sanctions against Iran.  Once again, our allies across the pond are doing little to actually move the peace process forward, instead doing all they can to enable Iran to get away with its rogue activities.  Regardless of their intentions, the short-sightedness is repulsive.

India may be pursuing energy deals with Iran, including plans to run a pipeline from Iran, through Pakistan, and over to India–though the relationship between the two states is uneasy at best, regardless of the recent diplomatic mission to India by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   The Wall Street Journal writes:

India and Iran have also encountered new areas of contention. In the past two years, India has voted twice against Iran’s nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where members have accused Iran of violating international obligations.

But India’s ties with the Americans have turned testy at times over Iran. Last week, a U.S. State Department spokesman urged the Indian government to use its leverage with Tehran to persuade it to suspend its suspected nuclear-weapons program and to stop supporting terrorist organizations believed to be active in Iraq.

India brushed off U.S. concerns. India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that the government was able to manage ties with Iran on its own.

Whether India would change course if Iran were to gain access to nuclear power is another question.  Certainly another Islamic State with the bomb would be unwelcome news to the Indians.

So what should the American response to a nuclear Iran be?  This is a difficult question, especially as we are quite effectively mired down in Iraq at present.  Nevertheless, can we avoid war, put it off a while until we finish our business in Iraq?  Is war something that we can file away for a later date?

William Kristol writes:

Great powers don’t get to avoid their urgent responsibilities because they’d prefer to deal with only one problem at a time, or to slough those responsibilities off onto others.

To be sure, we must keep diplomacy’s wheels turning with Iran–but we must also keep the very real threat of military action on the table, or else what good will diplomacy do?  The diplomacy of Chamberlain only leads to appeasement and defeat.  A nuclear Iran would truly be a defeat for the west–for civilization as a whole–and for our security and that of our allies.  This is not an exaggeration of the facts.

A nuclear Iran would cripple any attempts to bring modernity and peace to the region.  Not only could this situation lead to nuclear proliferation to other hostile states, it would lead to the very real risk of terrorist organizations gaining access to nuclear technology and weaponry.  Such proliferation, as well as the increased power of the extremist regime in Iran, would make it all that much harder for the region to evolve.  Peace would be just that much more intangible.

Steps must be taken to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.  Israel and the US must offer up real threats and consequences should Iran move any further in this direction.  China and Russia must be pressured forcefully to abandon their support of Tehran.  Their influence in this crisis has been one of the many obstacles in the moves toward peace and security.  Their obdurate stances, due to their very lucrative contracts with Iran as well as their desire for chaos in the region, could very well lead to a bubbling over of hostilities.  As in Darfur, China could have true influence in this matter, but chooses not to because of its own interests.  Russia is equally guilty of placing its interests over the interests of the world at large.

Now, as a second American Aircraft Carrier paddles its way into the Gulf, war seems ever more likely.  Iran can deter this fiasco, should it decide to abandon its policy of hubris and accept that it can and should live at peace with its neighbors, the West, and Israel.  Once upon a time, Iran was poised to become a peaceful, prosperous center of civilization in the Middle East.

It could achieve this again, should it chose peace over war.  Persia could reemerge, economically strong and free.  Or it could descend, further into darkness.

Kain's major subjects of focus at NeoConstant are international strategy; support of Israel; the failure of the international community to stop genocide; the spread of American power and democracy; historical analysis; and current events both domestically and abroad. He writes here, Newsvine and his blog, IndiePundit.