Some news relating to the possible upcoming war with Iran:

U.S. Wants Russia to Stop Iran Arms Sales

The United States pressed Russia on Friday to halt missile sales to Iran amid international efforts to defuse a standoff with Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

The U.S. wants other countries that are concerned about Iran's nuclear intentions to use their influence, be it cutoffs of trade ties or, in Russia's case, cancellation of a planned sale of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems.

Seems like something you'd want the Iranians not to have if you were going to be bombing them, but otherwise there's no real reason to prevent this kind of sale. These weapons systems are only useful for defense.

Russia is also setting up a deal to enrich Uranium for Iran, which will probably not diffuse the tensions. The problem here is that the Bush Administration demands a counterfactual: they want proof that Iran isn't working on nuclear weapons, but no matter how much evidence is provided there's always the possibility of a secret program of some sort. There's also the strong possibility that Iran is pursuing a homegrown nuclear program, and the truth is that in the long run we can't stop this.

There are really two options here. One is to learn how to deal with an increasing number of nations which possess their own Nuclear arms. The other is to massively strengthen international controls over nuclear technology, probably leading to a phase-out of nuclear power as a legitimate operation to remove "cover" activities for covert weapons programs. The latter isn't very likely, so really we're just going to have to learn to deal with more nuclear nations.

In real terms, I think countries like Iran want nuclear arms as a deterrent against outside powers (e.g. the US) coercing them with military force or attempting "regime change" through invasion/occupation. This is the most logical rationale -- and in spite of all the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders are at least as rational as ours. It's also an point of view any thoughtful person can understand.

Really, all of this is the natural outcome of a unipolar power dynamic (one in which a single party is dominant). Even under the best of circumstances and the most benign of rules, the people who are being ruled over will come to quarrel with the people doing the ruling. Empires don't last. Enduring power differentials are oppressive, and eventually the oppressed start pushing back. The fact that we've gone ahead and played the knave here has just accelerated the process, and cost us dearly in terms of our chances for setting up a better balance of power.

Too bad, you know? Shouldn'ta voted for Nader.