Lest There Be Doubt

Iran appears sufficiently confident of itself that it seeks one of the non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council through a regular General Assembly election to take place on October 17. We should take heart that Iran is running against Japan for the Asian seat falling vacant at year's end.

Logically, it would seem that Iran might never be considered for such a post, given its longstanding record of human-rights abuses, and that the theocracy is a totalitarian government. But the world has seen on numerous other occasions where other states, some with terrorist-supporting backgrounds, have been nominated and taken their seats.

We will breathe a collective sigh of relief when Japan wins the vote and assumes its two-year term on the council, as expected.

There's no basis for even remotely comparing the two countries' records. Japan, a democratic country, an industrialized power house of innovation with no interest in challenging the legitimacy of its neighbours' existence; a strong ally of the West, a respecter of human rights.

As opposed to the Iranian Revolutionary Republic which suppresses free speech, enacts the death penalty under Sharia law, victimizes other religions like the Baha'i and treats dissenters to free room and board in their dread prisons.

Yet Iran's reputation as an aggressive and fundamentalist government which persecutes those of its people who do not conform to rigid societal-cultural-religious models in obedience to their Ayatollahs' interpretation of Koranic scriptures, sees no reason why it should not sit on the UN's Security Council.

Which, logically, should include only countries which pose no threat to their neighbours or the world at large. Consider: the Security Council comprised of the five permanent members has passed three rounds of sanctions on the country as a result of its refusal to give up its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Which Iran insists is for peaceful purposes to enhance needed power generation.

And which Western nations, given a multitude of clues, feel they have ample reason to believe that Iran's insistence on its right to enriched uranium is for a singular purpose; that aimed at pursuing nuclear weaponry. A suspicion that Iran continues to claim is unwarranted.

At the same time Iran, through its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to warn Israel, the "Zionist entity", that it will be wiped from the map of the Middle East.

All of which combined results in an impression that this is a country whose current government presents an imminent danger to the geography of the Middle East, and beyond. Finally, it has been revealed by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency that there is unequivocal proof of Iran's search for nuclear weapons.

The rejoinder from Iran is that the evidence presented by IAEA is fake.

Not much of an argument as to which of the two - the country or the UN nuclear watchdog - is to be believed. The IAEA has in its possession no fewer than 18 documents which put the lie to Iran's claim of peaceful nuclear use. Documents such as those which focus on methods to be used to install warheads on the country's Shahab-3 missile.

Others detailing infrastructure and methodology for the testing of nuclear devices. The experiments - whose existence was uncovered by Olli Heinonen, head of IAEA's safeguards - explained in a declaration to diplomats were "not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon".

Details like detonators which another document described as representing "key components of nuclear weapons". Iran has exercised its penchant for stonewalling when asked by the IAEA to render meaningful explanations for the studies so the world can be assured of its peaceful intent.

Oddly enough, Iran had anticipated that it would have no problem persuading the IAEA of its peaceful intentions. Now that the documents have been isolated and presented as evidence of incontrovertibly contrary intentions in full breach of UN resolutions there really is little that can be expected of Iran since it refuses to relent.

Iran has its own supporters and admirers, from the governments of North Korea, Syria and Russia to disaffected Islamists and jihad-sympathizers all over the world. One supposes it cannot be all that surprising that Iran, despite all of the above, feels itself entitled to a Security Council seat.

Its president was able to stand up and deliver an address replete with racist-inspired denunciations and threats against another member of the United Nations with no ill after-effects. Not even a diplomatic chiding from the United Nation's Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon.