I agree the West should have been more critical about Iraqi...

I agree the West should have been more critical about Iraqi chemical weapons attacks on Iranian troops, but the West has been driven nuts by Iranian behaviour too. The American embassy hostage crisis (1979), the Beirut barracks bombing (1983) (Iran was responsible for the 299 American and French servicemen killed?), various kidnappings, etc. probably made the West hope the Iranian leadership would get its comeuppance courtesy of Saddam Hussein. Nothing has changed except Iran wants to be a substantial regional power throughout the Middle East and it wants respect for its dogma of "West=evil" and "Khamenei dictatorship(aka rule of the just)=good". The fact it needs to acquire nuclear weapons know-how and that the "break-out time is now much shorter makes me think something to resolve the problem one way or the other within 6 months will have to happen. Hopefully it will be the Iranian people chucking out their leadership, but it might also be the West launching a pre-emptive attack. Anyway it all bodes well for UCL once this difficult period is over. It is hard to imagine the Security Council at the UN will all be sitting on Persian rugs eating ghormeh sabzi and working Saturday to Wednesday promoting dictatorship, corruption and poor human rights worldwide in 6 months' time. Iran will lose this conflict, IMO. So at the end of it all, UCL should have bright prospects, and hopefully before MAK states its improved hard process for making phosphoric acid is commercially viable).