UN sanctions Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/un.iran.ap/index.html

Because Iran has failed to comply with the demands of the IAEA for transparency in its nuclear program, the UN has enacted its first salvo of sanctions against the nation, prohibiting the sale of nuclear technology and material to Iran.  Iran, obviously, is pissed off, claiming the US and the UN are using a double standard, as they have entirely ignored Israel's confirmed possession of at least 200 nuclear warheads.  Nevertheless, these sanctions are a reminder from the UN that Iran is a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and should abide by it.

Let us all speculate about the shitstorm that will come in the following months and years.

>>4
We don’t, and shouldn’t HAVE to protect Israel. However Ayns statement wasn’t about that, and neither was the post it was directed at. It was simply answering WHY we should but not should we HAVE to.

The arguments used to defend Israel from the whole of middle-east aggression in 1973 can't be applied in the same way today, your correct on that point (in the broad since and to the whole of the middle-east). However you did make one mistake, you presupposed that Iran then must be different in terms of ideological beliefs then that the middle-east in 1973, which is not the case. If you view the same argument from this angle you will see it still applies, and if you agreed with it then you must agree with it now.

I won’t answer the rest of your post as it’s not related to this topic and you decided to package it following strict polemicist guidelines.