What can be done to ease tensions between Iran and Western nations?

denuclearize Israel (?)

denuclearize the whole world OR allow Iran to own nukes

Double standards from western countries create too many problems.

U.S. needs to re-affirm the Algiers Accords In 1981, the U.S. signed an agreement with Iran in which the U.S. pledged "that it is and from now on will be the policy of the U.S. not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Since U.S. already signed this, let's affirm that it's still U.S. policy and will remain so.

Sadly this is a perfect storm for war.

The allies in the west deeply fear a nuclear armed Islamist state. Nothing is likely to relax these fears. Iran, in the post Iraq war world, is a center of power and authority in the ME and as such must show a strong face in this environment. The end of the Iraq war, ongoing economic crisis in Europe and the US also make war an inviting distraction and potential stimulus option. Iran's leadership has played directly into the hands of the western politicals by failing to take any of a dozen opportunities to defuse this conflict.

Result = War is not only a risk, but growing rapidly in probability.

One thing I often hear from people is the fact that Iran can't be allowed to have nukes because it can't be trusted.

My comment to this is : what country can be trusted?

Look at the US. GW Bush, president of a so called "trustable country" was the first to put in place "pre-emptive wars". Note that the guy was a christian.

Now that a mormon might get the keys of the oval office, I'm not too happy with the prospect of having another US president with holy ideals leading to som kind of holy pre-emptive strikes or whatever.

That's why I think that Iran has every right to own nukes, because it's not less trustable than the US or any other country.

tkoind : I agree with you that everything converge toward conflicts.

And you forget a few other points that could have negative impacts :

Putin again in power in 2012 (the guy has too much testosterone going on ) Probably a republican as a US president in 2012 (a mormon maybe??) A new leader in China in 2012 Maybe Marine Le Pen (right wing) as president in France in 2012 A young dictator in North Korea, willing to show who is really in charge North african countries way too unstable and prone to destabilization from extremists Europe voting more and more for right wing groups

The global political and economic picture is very worrying. Like the 1930's it seems conflict is on the horizon. And at the very least more economic hardship ahead.

But with Iran, I feel there is a particular leaning towards conflict and not away from it on both sides. This may hasten a new war if all are not extremely careful.

I don't see anything wrong with Iran having a nuclear program, as long as it is for peaceful use. So all the U.S. and EU need do is quietly say to the Iranian rules, "If you ever use nuclear weapons against any country, you'll be bombed back into the Stone Age." That should be enough to keep the peace.

They are already in the stone age smarticus

Mabo. Iran is hardly stone age. It has one of the richest artistic, literature and musical cultures in the world.

Yeah, I've never seen a stone age country able to steal a state of the art piece of technology from the country that spend trillions of dollars on military research. Some people really lack humility :)

I honestly guess that even nukes in Iran wouldn't be a real problem. The pursuit of nuclear power and nukes (without much doubt) is pure policy of showing strength for the sake of winning the next elections, since Ahmadinedschad's successes in inner policy are insufficient. The Iranian goverment must show a "strong leadership" to avoid losing in the next elections.

Everyone (Iran included) knows that the use of nukes will be the end of any country (except the four big ones), because they will have to be declared pariahs in the the global economy (if they are not bombed back to Stone Age). Even France and Britain could not try to risk the use of nukes if they wanted. And I see in continental Europe a rather clear unwillingness to follow the US into another war. Libya was different, since it was perceived as very close by.

In Germany, this would be the certain end of the government in the elections next year. The conservatives will not want to reproduce their loss in the elections due to the Iraq war.

The most dangerous possibility is that Israel could start a preemptive war instead of relying on acts, which strongly resemble terrorism, as they do now.

This has nothing to do with Israel being a nuclear state and everything to do with Israel refusing to return to it's 1947 borders and the UN and all other nations to recognize Palestine as a legitimate state. The U.S. holds the purse strings on this one, but the pro-Israel lobby is so strong that I can't imagine it will ever weaken here.

Then the U.S. needs to ratchet down the rhetoric and the idiotic fears of Iran going nuclear. I don't want them to be a nuclear state (I don't want the U.S. to be a nuclear), but I'd say they'd be a lot more reliable nuclear state than Pakistan will ever be. Even if they got the bomb, they'd be in a MAD situation with Israel. Indian and Pakistan have existed in this condition for decades now and they even share a border.

But, ultimately, Iran needs a "Persian Spring" to rid itself of its unelected and unaccountable theocrats and Revolutionary Guard. However, I can't see this happening without a bloody civil war (thing Libya) as they both have deeply vested interests in the status quo.

Give Iran a fully operational nuke primed and aimed at Washington. This will ensure that there will never be a war between the US and Iran. In fact give them two with the other aimed at Israel who are the most likely to start a war anytime soon.

Elect Ron Paul for President. That should ease tensions with Iran.

Actually give power to the people like democracy claims it does...instead of power mongering power brokers.

Since the covert war of the U.S. against Iran is well underway, I would say that little can be done because the ultimate aim of the U.S. has been for quite a number of years to ensure domination of as much as the ME as possible. Either Iran bows to U.S. demands, or it will eventually find itself the recipient of all-out war. The nuclear weapons program of Iran is a big problem to many in the area, but it also conveniently gives the U.S. a reason to increase its threats. (I guess the WMD excuse wouldn't work again.)

The U.S. is not maintaining so many forces and materiel on bases scattered throughout the ME for no reason. And it most certainly does not have its largest embassy and near 20,000 personnel stationed in Iraq simply for friendship. This is about hegemony: geopolitical domination of land and resources. The U.S. has significant influence, if not de facto control of most countries in the area. Iran is next on the list.

A pentathalon involving a champion from the US and Iran competing in events such as throwing grenades from a Lexus in the desert, camel racing, scimitar dueling. Winner gets either nuclear capability or oil. Seriously though, both sides need to chill out.

I say let them build what ever they want.

Do they have earthquakes and tsunami there? That would be wonderful.

Iran has already stated as soon as it gets nuclear weapons Israel is getting it.

Iran cannot be allowed to get nukes just for making the threat of nukeing another country, wake up people or you might as well just slaughter israel now.

Someone tell the US to shut up beefing and trying to start WWIII!

Iran has already stated as soon as it gets nuclear weapons Israel is getting it.

Iran has no plans to commit suicide, which is what it would be doing if it attacked Israel.

Iran has U.S soldiers on five of its borders, its nuclear scientists are getting murdered and research facilities are being attacked. So they take a look at what happened with North Korea when they acquired nuclear weapons. Nobody messes with North Korea anymore, do they? No sir. Is it any wonder why they would like a tactical nuclear weapon? Would they start a war with it? Well, Iran hasnt started a war in 250 years, so chances are they wouldnt.

@ExportExpert:

Iran has already stated as soon as it gets nuclear weapons Israel is getting it.

Iran cannot be allowed to get nukes just for making the threat of nukeing another country, wake up people or you might as well just slaughter israel now.

Israel has more than enough nuclear weapons to obliterate Iran in a matter of minutes. The U.S. has nuclear capability at Iran's doorstep all the time with elements of the U.S. Navy.

Iran would be utterly destroyed if it tried to nuke Israel.

It's not going to happen.

Iran cannot be allowed to get nukes just for making the threat of nukeing another country, wake up people or you might as well just slaughter israel now.

This should've quoted too.

The core problem is that Iran is enriching uranium up to 20 percent, thus fears that Iran is building a bomb.

But currently Iran is locked into buying fuel for its nuclear reactors from other countries and I cannot imagine its cheap.

I believe the answer is to make a deal to sell the Iranians already fabricated fuel rods at a price so cheap they would never be justified enriching uranium.

If they refuse that deal then they must be building a bomb and surgical strikes will be justified.

surgical strikes will be justified

Ok - but dont forget to bomb the UK, France, the USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea too.

I mean, it is justified, right?

The four people who clicked "Bad" on this need to open their eyes.

Iran is hardly stone age. It has one of the richest artistic, literature and musical cultures in the world.

Iran (used to be called Persia) has a far longer, richer and deeper, artistic and scientific culture than the U.S.A.

Check it out.