The American argument against Iran’s government acquiring dual-capabilty nuclear power has never amounted to much more than ‘us versus them,’ especially regarding our opposition to their duplicating what we have already accomplished. Until the argument against Iran’s government developing dual-purpose nuclear technology includes the rational “grounds” for Iran–in particular–not being permitted to have what America, France, England, India, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan already have, the world blinks at the sight of our double-standard and yawns at our arguments against Iran.

Our argument is unnecessarily weak, and Iran’s government knows it. A better argument can be made, one which would elicit world-wide support. But so long as we continue to argue about Iran’s “defiance of Security Council resolutions” or “past promises broken” or “suspected illegal activity by a NPT signatory,” the world will likely merely continue to nod and note the similarity of these arguments and our justification for the invasion of Iraq.

They are very bright people at the Claremont Institute; one wishes they had a respected scholar at the Institute who is an expert, both in Khomeini’s ‘learned jurisprudent’ and in Mussolini’s “Doctrines of Fascism,” writing about an imminent nuclear incineration from Iran.