A State Can Perform Programs Unless it Endangers Peace

The Iranian reaction to international demands is that it is doing what it is allowed to do. This brings us to the question what are the limits of international intervention and/or sanctions. All the Security Council resolutions to stop the nuclear program and the IAEA calls to implement the protocols for extensive inspections are futile. Under its sovereignty, a state can perform programs, unless it endangers world or regional peace. Here is the crucial factor concerning a state "should allowed" and this brings us to the question of the possibilities of international intervention. Who will do it? Under what conditions and umbrella? Even the question of the legitimacy is not clear, let alone the operational issues.

This raises another question of what kind of international relations we wish to have. So far all international organizations have failed most of the time to stop aggression; to restore peace; and to sustain world order. There are also the questions of who decides what aggression is; what are its limitations; what is world order; and who will keep it as much as to perform it? Indeed, the proliferation of world opinions, attitudes, values and policies is so diversified that it is really impossible to act. Who will decide that Iran causes a problem that compels "the world" to intervene? What about Venezuela? Why not Saudi-Arabia? Or Putin's Russia? And what about part of the Arab-Islamic regimes (like Pakistan; Afghanistan; Algeria; Somalia), that preserve the anarchic-chaotic Arab-Islamic violent "order?"   

So far, it was mainly the US decision if and when to intervene. Most of the time the price was high and it was accompanied with high internal and external costs. Does the US willing to continue -- internally (lose of man-power; economy; exhausted public opinion; calls for isolationism) and internationally (hatred, mainly from Europe; the Russian game power; the emergence of China) -- these trends? Does the US wish to continue its role as "the world police"? I am not sure. In the absence of US decision – who will do it? I am afraid that like the environment issue, the international relations' future is quite gloomy.

Under these conditions pariah states like Iran continue to challenge world order, mainly because there are always aggressive-ambitioned-externalized leaders who wish world glory and territorial expansion. Moreover, since international relations are not static, there are always revisionist states that seek to change the regional/international order. Much more, there is also the question of why current international order constitutes a framework that must be imitated and/or kept? It is so shaky, it has failed so many times – why not try another suggestive order? And immediately, who will decide of that order and act to implement? This question is not theoretical only. It is practical, and it is here: world order is now molded and shaped by the Islamic high-tide aggressive-violent onslaught. It is Sunni even more than it is Shiite - from Iran. Saudi-Arabia, also being the main source of the Iranian threats, conducts, leads, and finance the Islamic world-wide Da`wah (propagation), which is much more lethal to the West's superiority than Iran, much more deadly than Jihad. What do we do about it? Why we do not aggregate our forces and unite together to eliminate this chaotic threat?