OIL - Iran has the potential to control the passage of oil in the Persian Gulf - the vast majority of tankers travelling from Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi, and other states are overlooked from Irans coastline (and herefore by its anti-ship missile positions, torpedo boats, and short range surface to surface missile sites) - a strategic advantage that the US, UK, and others find almost intolerable. OIL - Iran has the the Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Saudi, and other major oil field within easy range of their missiles - presenting a major threat to energy security of the US, UK, and others. OIL - Iran has massive under developed natural resouces (gas as well as oil) worth billions upon billions of dollars to western countries - if only they could access them. OIL - Iran does not, at least officially, trade oil in US dollars - this has a potentially devaluing affect upon the dollar. OIL - Iran (and Venuzula) are the only major oil produces that do not have 'submissive' relationships with the US - the short term implications of non capitulation to the US are demonisation and economic warfare (aided by UN sanctions). Long term implications could be direct military action. Add into the mix the 'wild card' which is Israel (and which is pursueing its own adgenda through its influence within the US), and we really only have two options: 1) Iran capitulates (like every other Gulf state has), 2) Iran is systimatically weakened -a) economically (as is happening - sanctions, seizing of assets, etc), b) strategically (as is happening - Iran is almost completly encircled by hostile US forces), and c) diplomatically (as is happening - ie its President and leadership discredited and villified, and countries refusing to listen to the leadership in Public). These measures will eventually force Iran to capitulate, or initiate a chain of events that 'justify' military against Iran action. As I have stated previously - the US and certain other states have already determined Irans fate.

Ahmadinejad is not playing a poker game. The West is. Ahmadinejad knows damn well that you don't talk to the bullies of this world--US and Israel--from a position of weakness. Once you let them into your internal affairs and yield them the right to play with your national sovereignty, you might as well bid goodbye to any say in your destiny and take a seat next to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The bluff is emanating from that unrelenting aggressor in the region, Israel. The United States must know--and I think it knows--that letting the trigger happy gangster state on some nuclear sites in Iran will have consequences so detrimental to the American interests in the region that it will shake Israel, the client state of the US, in its boots. So let's be clear. Ahmadinejad has proved more than once that he is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable political leaders today. He will never play poker with the fate of his country. But he knows that the era of the bullies is coming to an end, about half a century after the British and the CIA deposed the popularly elected Iranian leader, Mohammad Mosaddeq, with a coup d'etat. Don't look for saber rattlers in Iran. They reside in Washington and Tel-Aviv. But their fangs have been pulled out and they scare nobody. The times when threats ruled the world are gone. Let the world leave in peace and you will live in peace.

It is pity that RT was not able to resist turning Iran’s nuke politics into a personalised/psychologising nonsense. In reality, what we need is to understand ideas of war and peace according to neocons own beloved theorist Karl Schmitt. If as Schmitt correctly says politics is between enemies and friends and the United States sees Iran as an enemy and that both Israel and the United States are open about their willing to bomb Iran, what is the surest and the most logical recourse to Iran security than a acquiring its own nukes? Iran knows that in 2003, the United States and its coalition of the willing invaded Iraq not because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but because Iraq did not have effective nukes of its own. This is a lesson which then President Vladimir Putin was able to so brilliantly expound in his now famous 2007 speech in Munich: there can only be a one global security for all or non at all.

Jim, It seems that you have 100% confidence that the United States omnipotent power to determine the fate of Iran! Do you say this because the U.S was able to invade Iraq and get away with it?In reality, its Russia not the United States that is key to this situation. All Russia needs is to defend Iran and Venezuela by supply them with basic and effective defensive weapons and proper military training-something which all nations are entitled. In doing so, Russia can provide these nations with the security they need and since the U.S military is tired and spent,- here I do not refer to 'smart weapons' and other bling bling military gadgets by troops- the United States will learn to deal with nations in peaceful ways than the current militaristic aggression.

Sarah, No you miss my point - I do not believe that the US is omnipotent, but I do believe that the US believes they are omnipotent. The US are an 'arrogant' superpower who actually think - often beyond doubt - that they are the most advanced manifestation of civilisation that the world has ever seen. This apparently gives them justification for spreading their ideas about governments / freedom / democracy / security / etc, and 'crushing' - financially, diplomatically, or millitarily - anyone who dares to disagree. Also, thier 'might is right' approach to diplomacy is akin to a child with a firearm - they use the threat of overwhelming power to get their way and are prone to 'tantrums' when they don't get their way - and just like a child they may pull the trigger without properly understanding the consequences, and not understanding that bullets can ricochet and hit unintended targets too. This, I feel, is the current situation with Iran and the US. The US has 'decided' what Iran will do. However, Iran has also 'decided' what it will do - and what it wont do - and this may not be what the US demands. Now does the 'child' throw a tantrum and start shooting? - with who knows what consequences, or does the child 'grow up' and learn to talk to people it may not like in order to settle their differences? - like most adults do. I fear that the US will eventually push Iran into a confrontation - once it has completed isolating the country and weakening it. As for Russia, the US (and Israel) is actively offering Russia alternatives to assisting Iran diplomaticly, or through the supply of advanced weapons. Unless Russia fears further US encroachment, particularly in the Caspian sea area which Iran would give them access to, then Russia will do what it always does - look after its own interests.

Jim Of course, the U.S will say that it is greatest civilisation in the World! What we need to examine what criteria are we using when we speak about civilisations. I want to select the overall contribution a civilistion makes to human development, politically, culturally and technologically. The United States is a rich frontier country blessed with lot of natural resources and significant population density. However, unlike Russia, China, India , France, Germany and other old civilisaions, the United States is a young frontier settler colonial state. Unhindered by the rigid moral and cultural traditions of the Old Europe, American elite were able to develop their country primarily according to utilitarian technological imperatives. Therefore technology is the primary cultural form for American civilisation. Technology contains within itself both techne and logos. All great civilisations have learned how to balance between the utility of technology[techne] and the forces of the logos[cosmos, God, social good, democracy, etc]. This dynamic is clear from Renaissance art, architecture and scientific discoveries. For the Old Europe, technology had moral of the logos.. The rise of the U.S as global dominant power is linked to fall of the Old Europe [i.e. WI and WII European empires destroyed each other]. In reality, lack of historical knowledge is the reason why Bin Laden was able to entice the United States into reckless costly wars which most potentially might undo the U.S as a military and technological empire..