Iranian Prime Minster Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN.   Photo: The Telegraph.co.uk

You might think that members of the G20 have enough on their plates with global economic crash.  However, on the first day of the G20 summit, leaders found something else to talk about ... Iran.

US, France, and the UK have all accused Iran of building a "secret" nuclear plant that they claim is for weapons use.  All three concede that the type of reactor under construction is a perfectly acceptable power generation reactor.  The concern is that it can ALSO be used to create weapons-grade plutonium.

Iran has countered that nothing about the project was secret.  They claim to have filed all the necessary paperwork for the reactor, and they further contend that internal energy and defence policy is strictly an Iranian affair, and it's hard to argue with that logic.  If any other country tried to dictate energy or defence policy to the US, UK, or France, especially on threat of military action, we would be incensed at the imposition on our sovereignty.

And yet, that is exactly what those three countries, and the rest of the G20, are doing to Iran in this incident ... dictating internal Iranian policy to the government in Tehran.  Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad was on Larry King Live to talk about the plant.  "What business is it of yours?" he asked in response to a question by King about the intended use of the plant.

What business is it of ours?  There's no doubt that we disagree with Iranian politics, and there's no doubt that we have the right to voice our opposition to those policies.  I am not questioning those rights, but at the end of the day, these questions are internal questions of Iranian policy and we have no right to threaten to bomb them if they refuse to follow our dictates.  If anyone else tried that with us, we would rightly reject it as an inappropriate attempt to meddle in our country's sovereignty.  It is exactly the same thing when we do it to others, as it is when they do it to us.

But even assuming we had the right to dictate policy to another government, are we dictating the right one?  There is no doubt that the regime in Iran is potentially dangerous from a western perspective, but let's remember they live in a dangerous neighbourhood as well.  Iranians claim that they need nuclear weapons as a means of defence against aggressive neighbours, and in the wake of repeated Israeli threats to bomb Tehran, it's hard to argue that they don't have aggressive neighbours.

Given that Israel is also a nuclear power (undeclared, perhaps, but no intelligence agency in the world doubts they have a substantial number of high-yield warheads), doesn't Iran have a legitimate argument to make that they need the deterrence of a nuclear arsenal to counter the Israeli nuclear threat in their neighbourhood?  The US has built its HUGE arsenal on exactly that justification ... that the aggressive nature of the Soviet Union, and the fact that they had nuclear weapons meant the US had to have its own arsenal as a deterrent.  If that argument was valid for the US, why is it not valid for Iran?

Finally, lets talk a bit about aggression and danger.  There is little doubt that the rhetoric coming from the Iranian leadership in recent years is pretty disturbing to western ears, but lets move beyond rhetoric for a moment.  What was the last country that Iran (or the Persian state under any name) invaded?  When was the last time Iran attacked another country directly (remember, Saddam attacked Iran to start the Iran-Iraq war, not the other way around).  In fact, when was the last time Iran even threatened any specific military action against any other nation?

The answer is, never in modern times.  Iran has not invaded any other country, nor have they attacked any other country, or even specifically threatened any other country in modern history.  They DO talk about "wiping Israel off the map" but they've NEVER explicitly threatened to send bombs raining down on Tel Aviv.  Contrast that with Israel, which currently builds settlements on occupied land, attacked it's neighbour Lebanon with rocket attacks very recently, and which routinely threatens to bomb any Arab capital that happens to scare it that particular day.

Honestly, which country is the most aggressive, and most dangerous in the region?  The country that uses rhetoric to insult and debase others, but hasn't actually attacked or invaded anyone in modern history, or the country that has been in a continual state of war with it's neighbours for the past 50+ years, is currently occupying land taken by military force, and which directly threatens its neighbours with specific attack on a regular basis?

The answer seems clear to me.  Iran is a paper tiger ... they talk tough, but, in fact, have a very strong record when it comes to militarily minding their own business (sure, they ship arms and aid to others around the world ... so does the US and Israel, in much larger qantities).  Israel, on the other hand, actually has a track record of attacks and invasions of it's neighbours, and following through on it's threats.  It's pretty clear, IMO, which of those is actually the biggest threat in the region.