Russia has hedged its lead as the most prolific arms dealer in the world  (yes, even more than the US) with a recent agreement with Venezuela.

 Oil-rich Venezuela is a major purchaser of Russian weapons and hardware. In 2005-2006, Venezuela ordered weaponry from Russia worth $3.4 billion, including 24 Su-30MK2V Flanker fighters, Tor-M1 air defense missile systems, Mi-17B multi-role helicopters, Mi-35 Hind E attack helicopters and Mi-26 Halo heavy transport helicopters.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it will actively participate in the modernization of the Venezuelan armed forces until 2013.

Kommersant said negotiations were underway on the purchase of 10 Il-76 Candid military transport planes and two Il-78-MK aerial tankers for the Venezuelan Air Force. The contract will be worth a total of $600 million.

Deliveries will be completed next year. The aircraft will replace six outdated American Lockheed C-130H Hercules transport planes and two Boeing 707-320C aerial tankers.

Venezuela and Russia have also agreed on the purchase of four Kilo-class Project 636 diesel submarines. The terms of the deal, estimated at $1.2 billion, were negotiated late last year.

The Project 636 submarine is designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface-ship warfare, and also for general reconnaissance and patrol missions. It is considered to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world.

The strategic problems having (very quiet) Venezuelan submarines patrolling the Atlantic and Caribbean oceans should not be overlooked. To me, this is akin to Russia placing strategic missiles on Cuba.

The die is cast for me now. I have heard enough.

Iran’s president has stated clearly enough that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. This interview took place on Iranian TV in July 2007.

Interviewer: But the international public opinion cannot prevent this?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Today, international public opinion is the main power in the world…

Interviewer: I don’t want to draw comparisons, but if I recall what happened with regard to Iraq before 2003, there were many anti-war demonstrations, but Bush did what he wanted.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Demonstrations and public opinion are two entirely different things. At the time, international public opinion was against Saddam.

Interviewer: True.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: They considered Saddam to be a dictator.

Interviewer: But they were against the war as well.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: No. The international public opinion wanted to topple Saddam. You should not make this mistake – even if there were some demonstrations. But now the situation is different, because international public opinion believes that justice lies with the Iranian people. That is why hundreds of articles are published daily throughout the world, none of which [supports a war]. Even the top officials in the world are in our favor.

[...]

We must bear in mind that we are becoming a nuclear country. When Iran becomes nuclear, it’s not like any other country becoming nuclear. It means that Iran will automatically become one of the nine [nuclear] countries of the world. That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.” It is not the bomb they are worried about…

[...]

Interviewer: You took several measures during the first months of your presidency, but now it seems that you’ve cut down on them, and you don’t send letters to anybody, and you don’t say things that are meant to shock the world, with regard to international relations.

It sounds innocent enough, as nuclear fuel is used for the generation of electricity in nuclear power plants - except for one small detail.

Ahmadinejad mentions that there are 8 nuclear countries, and Iran will become the 9th. Well, there are some 30 countries who a “nuclear” from a power generation standpoint. There are only 8 other countries, which have nuclear weapons.

Here is the admission

That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.”

Don’t take my word for it - see for yourself.

The Secretary General of the UN stated Iran must provide the United Nations with a confidence that their enrichment of uranium is  for civil, peaceful purpose.

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) — Iran hasn’t proven to the world that it has been developing nuclear technology exclusively for peaceful purposes, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today.

“We still do not have full confidence what the real intention of the Iranian government is up to as far as their nuclear programs,” Ban said in an interview.

Now, this is not going to be easy for Iran to do at all - I’m not sure how it is possible. There is certainly no way to prove you are only using enriched uranium as fuel in your power-generating reactors without a great deal of oversight. The level of oversight Iran has bristled at in the past. Inspections alone will not be enough to accomplish this. The implication here is the United Nations - certainly most western governments - are going to remain suspicious of a nation which opens its parliamentary sessions with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”; which supports terrorist organizations; and which has materially contributed to activities to perpetuate instability in Iraq. This is especially difficult when the “vindicative proof” Iran has stopped making weapons is coming under question (again - enriched uranium is dual use - take the questions with a grain of salt).

My thinking is that this statement by Secretary-General Moon has less to do with the extent of Iran’s nuclear ambition and more to the intent of Iran’s geopolitics in general. I am not a nuclear materials expert, but it would seem Iran is in the same boat Iraq was in. They have dual-use programs which have the capacity to produce weapons. Since their rhetoric is extremely violent in nature, it must be reasonably assumed they intend to make good on their threats.

What might clear all of this up - inject some confidence in the international community - is for Iran to make some definitive overtures of peace. Sign a peace agreement with Israel or the United States - and offer to re-establish full diplomatic relations. Iran could display a “we are sovereign, Islamic, and in disagreement with much of your western values - yet we are a nation at peace” relationship within the international community and the burden of proof of their peaceful intentions for enriched uranium would diminish greatly.

However, that would be like asking the KKK to make an overture of good intent to the NAACP, wouldn’t it? Things like this don’t help much either.