The war of words continues unabated with regard to Iran's nuclear intentions. The rhetoric emanating from the leaders of Iran, Israel and the United States is filled with suspicion, distrust and dangerous saber rattling. The tensions are rapidly escalating to the point that just one small spark could ignite a Middle East inferno that could escalate into the next world war.

::::::::

The war of words continues unabated with regard to Iran's nuclear intentions. The rhetoric emanating from the leaders of Iran, Israel and the United States is filled with suspicion, distrust and dangerous saber rattling. The tensions are rapidly escalating to the point that just one small spark could ignite a Middle East inferno that could escalate into the next world war.

Words are cheap, actions speak much louder. Listening to these three parties' never-ending rhetoric is a monumental waste of time and will solve nothing. Actions are the things that count when analyzing just what is happening in the Middle East and where this situation may be heading.

Let's begin with words. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of obtuse rhetoric. He craves the spotlight even though that exposure is generally damaging to his image. He uses every opportunity presented to insult and make threats against the government of Israel. But this worn out act is meaningless and merely serves to increase the hatred and distrust that his enemies feel for him.

The rhetoric flowing from the government of Israel is deadly serious with a constant menacing threat of potential attack upon the nuclear facilities of Iran. I can't ever recall hearing a message coming from Israel that has ever attempted to promote any form of diplomacy or to try to reach a middle ground with Iran or other neighbor states.

The message coming out of Washington has been mixed, conflicting and confusing. With the Bush war hawks we witnessed relentless saber rattling and threats for eight years. Now with President Obama, the message has changed to one that seemingly promotes diplomacy and mutual discussions. But there is still that ominous background noise that continues to stress that all options are on the table including an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

So, let's put aside all this rhetoric and concentrate on important actions taken by each of these nations in the highly turbulent atmosphere of the Middle East.

The NNPT – the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: this is a treaty initiated in 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Of the 189 parties to the treaty, five have nuclear weapons; the U.S., Russia, the U.K., China and France. There are four notable sovereign states, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel that have chosen not to sign on.

This treaty allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NNPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Here, then, are the actions by Israel and Iran relative to nuclear weapons. Israel, which has refused to sign the NNPT Treaty, is believed to possess the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal outside of the five major nuclear powers. Israel will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the alleged nuclear arsenal but abundant evidence proves otherwise.

Iran, on the other hand, is a signatory to the NNPT and, thereby, is authorized to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. An ongoing battle is raging in which Iran is continually accused of enriching uranium, not for peaceful purposes, but for development of nuclear weapons. No such evidence has thus far been found even though the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency has, for years, been actively monitoring Iran's nuclear facilities.

Based on these facts, you can decide for yourself whose actions should be judged as detrimental to Middle East peace and whose seem to be in line with international treaties and law. This entire escalating scenario seems to be evolving in the same manner that we witnessed when Saddam Hussein was being accused of having weapons of mass destruction, while the United Nations inspectors were certain that he did not. This is déjà vu all over again.

Question: Why is Iran being treated as a greater threat than North Korea who has already developed nuclear weapon capabilities? Hint, hint. Because the nation of Israel is not located in that region and that vicinity of the world does not contain substantial petroleum reserves. That is why we do not see our government bringing unrelenting, intense pressure on North Korea or threats to attack their nuclear facilities.

Headline: “U.S. demands Iran open up its nuclear facilities to inspection.” Question: why does the U.S. not demand that Israel open up it highly secretive nuclear arsenal to IAEA inspection, and further demand that Israel join the NPT? The UN has instituted strong sanctions on Iran. Why have they not done the same thing to Israel for their apparent possession of a nuclear arsenal?

The answer is quite obvious. There are simply completely different rules for different nations. Israel gets a total pass with our government and the UN taking the position that they “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. Israel can do no wrong. The main point here is that with regard to the threat of nuclear war in the world, each and every nation should be made to abide by the exact same rules and none can be exempted.

This entire situation is now on the verge of getting totally out of control. Yes, there were discussions very recently between Iran, the U.S. and other nations that appeared to be conducive to establishing the beginnings of mutual understanding between all parties. That's a very good sign. Of course, there was no participation by Israel since they have proven, over many years, to have no interest in trying to use diplomacy in solving problems.

Something has to give here. Israel, a tiny sliver of a nation of 7.4 million continues to be very vocal in threatening to bomb the nuclear facilities that they are convinced are being used to develop weapons of mass destruction. Amadinejad, of course, can't let that pass and fires back with threats of his own. This situation becomes more tenuous by the day.

If Israel finally goes off the deep end and initiates an attack, then all hell will break loose. What will Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and other surrounding nations do? Will they sit by and watch Israel bring the region to a boiling point, or will they immediately take sides and retaliate in any number of destructive ways?

What would Russia and China do? Both of these very powerful nations have direct interests in Iran that largely involve natural resources. Both have supplied Iran with sophisticated missiles. Will they just let the Middle East go in flames? I think not! What they would do is uncertain but to think that they will not enter the conflict in some way is wishful thinking. This could turn into a world nightmare of untold proportions, a scenario that we do not want to witness.

In a recent speech before the United Nations Security Council, President Obama called for a nuclear weapons-free world and a strengthening of the NNPT. The Security Council unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution that endorses the eventual goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." It lays out steps for nuclear powers to trim their arsenals, while making it harder for other nations to convert civilian nuclear programs to military ones.

Hopefully, this program will get underway soon. But we know how slowly the wheels of the UN turn. So, in order to lay the groundwork for its eventual implementation, I would urge President Obama to start discussions with Israel that will result in opening up their nuclear program to UN inspection and to pressure them to join the NNPT. That, most likely, will probably be a near impossible outcome given Israel's rigid stance and agenda.

In the event that they should adamantly refuse to become a partner in the pursuit to eliminate nuclear weapons, then it will be time for the nations of the world to institute a comprehensive boycott that would put severe restrictions on their exports as well as their imports. That is not a radical idea since more and more nations seem to be coming to this conclusion. And any number of influential writers are suggesting the same.

Refusing to ship them needed products and materials, and ceasing major imports from Israel, is entirely feasible and relatively easy to implement. Taking such action would have an immediate, serious impact on Israel's economy and would make it clear to them that the world community of nations will no longer tolerate their belligerent attitude toward other nations. It could be the best way to force them to change their behavior and, best of all, it would involve no dangerous military actions.

The world cannot continue to look away and give a free pass to Israel any longer. It cannot allow that nation to escalate this dangerous situation into a Middle East inferno.