But is a nuclear Iran really just a man with a knife?

Martino comments on the prospects of a nuclear Iran:

A leading Vatican official expressed support for the development of a nuclear energy program in Iran, as long as it serves peaceful purposes.

"Nuclear energy is something that can do good for humanity" -- a principle that "is certainly valid for Iran, too," said Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Cardinal Martino spoke Oct. 23 at an interreligious gathering in Naples, Italy. His remarks, reported by the Italian news agency ANSA, came as Iranian and European officials met in Rome to try and resolve growing tensions over Iran's nuclear capability.

Cardinal Martino defended the right to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, and said any risks of improper use of nuclear technology "depend on the intentions of those who manage the program."

"Anything is possible, in the sense that I can use a knife to cut bread but also to kill someone," he said. (underlining mine)

In dealing with such questions at a global level, the cardinal said, the international community must balance the need for peace and security with the necessary development of populations. (CNS)

I am in agreement with the Cardinal that nuclear energy can be a good for humanity. I further agree that it can be a good for the people of Iran, because they, too, are a part of humanity. Similarly, it is of course reasonable to note that the risks associated with nuclear energy depend on the intentions of those running the program.

No one is disputing any of these premises. The entire debate is actually focused on the prudential question as to whether or not the Iranian program is purely for peaceful purposes.

Martino's example of the man with a knife is useful for demonstrating that a neutral object can be used for good or evil purposes, even though I would argue that nuclear energy has a far greater moral weight about it than a knife. But every analogy limps.

More to the point in this debate is the character of the man holding the knife. And in this case, the man with the knife runs an organization that has been known to covertly kill people with knives in the past and despite all requests to the contrary, he insists on hiding his knives underneath his coat while simultaneously claiming that he needs those thousands of knives to ... cut bread.

It's not hard to see why I don't think this kind of man needs any more knives.

A little support for my opinion:

• The UN has offered a tremendous incentives package to Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program for considerations of transparency. These incentives would directly and immediately improve the quality of life for Iranians - and yet the President of Iran vehemently refuses. [AFP]
• Iran's new best friend is Russia, who is building a nuclear power plant for Iran. Putin met with Ahmadinejad recently and gave the impression that Iran had every right to go nuclear - without transparency to the international community. [CNN]
• Wikipedia has a great deal of information on the Iranian nuclear program.

Now, I'm not absolutely ruling out (yet) the possibility that the Iranian nuclear program could be peaceful. But I find that extremely unlikely based on everything I've or come across so far.

Further, even if their intentions were only peaceful, the fact remains that the inherent instability of the region and the Iranian government in particular would seem to make the case prudentially that there should not be any extra nuclear material lying around for the taking.

Finally, in what I find the most convincing argument I've come across, is the fact that Iran is obstinately trying to produce weapons-grade uranium (which requires a far greater percentage of refinement) as opposed to industrial-strength uranium. Alternately, over time a nuclear power plant produces Plutonium which is automatically suitable for weapons. In short, you can't have a peaceful nuclear power program without also having the ability to produce weapons, and at any rate, Iran seems to be taking the fast-route for immediate weapons-grade uranium production.

Add to all of these fears the fact that Iran appears less-than-ready to be reasonable, and I worry.

I think this is an important debate to have, especially with the real possibility of a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear-production facilities in the future. If anyone has helpful links or good evidence one way or the other, please post it below. Thanks!