The mullahs may be irrational,

but Iran’s stance on nuclear power has made it something of a hero among third-world states, even those that are democracies with good human-rights records. Viewed from their perspective, this country’s refusal to bow to pressure from the west is admirable – the current stand-off highlights the double-standard approach to nuclear proliferation adopted by both Europe and America. It is these double standards that earn Iran its many admirers.

Think about it from the perspective of someone in Tehran, Lagos or Rio de Janeiro. You are allowed to build power stations, under watchful western eyes, perhaps to western designs and with the help of western companies – but you absolutely cannot make your own enriched uranium to power them. For that, you must go to those same rich, powerful countries who have appointed themselves as global policemen. And you must beg. In a bizarre contradiction, these countries that restrict your nuclear development actually bristle with arsenals of destructive power that could destroy your little state, not to say the rest of the world, a thousand times over. Now does this seem balanced, or do we hear that old-fashioned word “imperialism” being whispered?

In other words, because some countries have nukes, all countries should be allowed to have nukes. Never mind the ensuing arms race (think Sunni Egypt and Saudi Arabia vs. Shia Iran) and resulting increase in the risk of regional nuclear wars, especially when some of the nukes are in the hands of a state sponsor of terrorism. To McAlpine, this risks are worth taking to avoid a new “imperialism.”

And what country is the foremost advoate of the new imperialism and ignoring the non-proliferation treaty? You guessed it:

America also lives by its own rules. Last month, the Pentagon “accidentally” released a draft document called the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. It is currently sitting in Donald Rumsfeld’s far-from-safe pair of hands, awaiting approval. If Doctor Strangelove were made in the 21st century, a document such as this might well have featured in the plot. It suggests integrating conventional and nuclear attacks for the sake of “efficiency”. It lowers the threshold for nuclear strikes and tries to justify “first use”, even when the enemy only has conventional weapons. Targets include terrorists and states that support terrorists. There doesn’t even have to be a war. The more vague term “conflict” is used instead.

Frightening, isn’t it? Yet it is Tehran, not Washington DC, which is accused of breaching the non-proliferation treaty: a violation which, if accepted by the UN, could lead to the imposition of sanctions.

McAlpine’s article wouldn’t be complete without a few words of praise for the IAEA:

Mr El Baradei’s organisation is much more representative of the world community than, say, the permanent membership of security council. A substantial number of its governors belong to the Non-Aligned Movement, which makes up 116 members of the 191-strong UN.

Is Iran’s stance “understandable.” You bet. So was Hitler’s hatred of the Versailles Treaty. Does Iran have British sympathizers? So did Hitler (remember Chamberlain, among others?). Should any country with an understandable grievance be allowed to redress it, even if world peace is endangered in the process? Some people have either never learned the lessons of history, forgotten them, or have had their ideologies cloud their vision. McAlpine falls into one of these categories — probably the third.