The world has witnessed Iran's widely publicized testing of multiple stage missiles to deliver these weapons on television many times.

Just like Israel, which has acquired scores of nuclear arms, Iran wants the world to know something is afoot while continuing to deny this. It is openly saying it is enriching uranium, which could be used in the making of nuclear weapons.

Iranian military strategists have let it be known for some time that they feel a need to acquire nuclear weaponry potential as a defense primarily against Israel and the United States, not as an offensive weapon. This posture is plausible as the Iranian ruling establishment, while defiant at times is never reckless.

All of which raises the question: What are they thinking in the White House and the Pentagon?

Given the record of the past four years, the answer may simply end up being baffling. It could be as simple as this: There is no logic behind the logic. Maybe they think they will save the Gulf region by destroying it. They really may not know what they are doing. It has happened before. Why not again?

Here is the logic, before the illogic. One would imagine that those making the noises about Iran are fully aware that in practice nothing will or can be done at this point to stop Iran from pursuing at least the goal of being able to put such a weapon of mass destruction in its military arsenal. Or at the least, develop the ability to produce it on short notice.

Short of the use of direct force, an organized state with a fairly solid military infrastructure cannot be prevented from acquiring those weapons if it decides to do so.

North Korea is a prominent example of this. Equally well-established is the fact that ever since World War II nations that acquired nuclear weapons - including Pakistan and India, which have gone to war several times - have never resorted to using them.

Even Israel, which possesses some 200 atomic weapons, did not use any in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war where it, albeit for a few days, faced a threat to its survival. Indeed, the only nuclear power that used its weapons was the United States, which dropped atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 to end World War II.

Furthermore, respected and authoritative military strategists believe that joining the nuclear club confers a sense of gravity and responsibility upon its members.

The concept of mutually assured destruction, which is what can happen to anyone that uses nuclear weapons against anyone else that has them, has worked pretty well for more than 50 years to keep weapons of mass destruction dormant.

It is a military doctrine taught in military academies. The notion that a state, even a rogue one, would upset that rule is not tenable.

North Korea, which has the bomb, would only use it in a moment of panic if attacked first. North Koreans view the bomb as a defensive weapon and a method of blackmailing the West into giving them financial and food aid.

Indeed, after the end of the Cold War, a consensus among military and intelligence strategists has emerged that the real threat of weapons of mass destruction comes from rogue elements.

They can be disparate terrorist groups or corrupt scientists teaming up with mafia or corrupt government elements to steal, smuggle or otherwise obtain weapons of mass destruction for chaotic use in states that are in various conditions of disintegration, such as some of the former Soviet republics.

None of the above is a stretch. Much of it is already public knowledge and part of established intelligence doctrines, simply, facts of the post-Cold War world.

Given all this knowledge, one has to wonder why the Bush administration is then reviving the old play of "weapons of mass destruction'' rearing their heads again, this time from Iran, and why it is beating the war drums in the Gulf region for the second time in four years.

Could it be that the same president who gave us the Iraq war in his first term is preparing the Iran war in his second? On the face of it, this sounds crazy, especially since no evident exit is yet visible for America out of the Iraqi quagmire.

Reason would suggest before taking on Iran with its 70 million people, the United States should finish its quarrel with Iraq's 25 million.

Even Bush's opponent in the recent presidential elections, Sen. John Kerry, who said that Bush's invasion of Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, failed to come up with a way of ending it or a promise to bring the troops home in another four years.

Neither is it possible that anyone in the White House or the Pentagon imagines that making noises will dissuade Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. If anything, it may speed them up.

All this leads to the craziest conclusion of all: George W. Bush and his neo-conservative crowd really do not know what they are doing. Before you say this is far-fetched, just think that we are where we are precisely for that very same reason.

Yes, they really did not know what they were doing the past four years and do not know now what they are doing. What you see is what you get: There is no plan, there is no strategy, no roadmaps. As simple as that. Fasten your seat belts.

Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is Managing Director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group. He can be contacted at [email protected]

This essay first appeared in Gulf News.

All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only