Emboldened by Iran’s nuclear program, several nations are asserting their right to enrich uranium. The notable drop in the long-time stigma against nuclear power, and the corresponding increase in nuclear activity, is accelerating what Albert Einstein once termed the world’s “drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” into more like a cruise.

On August 25, South Africa announced it will launch a feasibility study on uranium enrichment. The announcement came three days after a joint bilateral summit between Iran and South Africa, where both nations reaffirmed their right to produce and use nuclear energy.

South Africa will conduct a cost-benefit analysis into the beneficiation of uranium, according to Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica. Her plans include constructing four to six nuclear reactors that would increase South Africa’s nuclear energy production by at least 5,000 mw.

America already views South Africa as an unreliable ally in the Iranian nuclear crisis. It demonstrated its concern over the issue when it sent an ambassador to Pretoria, South Africa’s capital, on August 24 to encourage South Africa to take a harder line on Iran’s nuclear program. Clearly, that meeting yielded nothing.

This failure is emblematic of America’s general loss of influence among developing nations. And that trend can only have one consequence: Considering the United States’ lack of clout in checking nuclear proliferation in the past, the loss of its power will only quicken the world’s drift toward nuclear disaster.

Increasingly, nuclear energy is becoming accepted. “The United States could cooperate with Egypt if it decides to develop nuclear energy,” said U.S. ambassador to Cairo Francis Ricciardone on August 21.

Supporting Egypt’s bid for nuclear energy is a risky move by America. The U.S. considers moderate Egypt an ally now, but that could change. Egypt’s radical Islamic element, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, is starting to gain enough strength to challenge President Hosni Mubarak, who has managed to keep somewhat of a lid on radical Islam in his country so far. It increasingly appears to be only a matter of time before the Muslim Brotherhood has the power to overthrow Mubarak’s regime—and should that happen, the U.S. could have another Iran-like crisis on its hands.

As U.S. influence wanes and more nations vie for membership in the nuclear club, Iran profits. Why? Simply because another developing nation announcing plans to enrich uranium legitimizes Iran’s own nuclear endeavors, at least in the eyes of the rest of the developing world.

Iran needs international support as it faces off with America in the nuclear crisis. Because the perception is that America’s military is too overcommitted to start a war and public opinion wouldn’t support one if the U.S. could, Washington’s foreign policy relies heavily on international support. That is why the European Union possesses such a major role in negotiating a settlement over the nuclear crisis and why the U.S. is pressing the United Nations to place trade sanctions on Tehran.

How much harder will it be for the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear plans if an Iran-friendly South Africa becomes a nuclear power? How will the U.S. explain its position against Iran, when it starts supporting Egypt’s bid for nuclear energy? And how will Europe’s position on Iran change when Eastern European nations start to enrich uranium—will it still be able to justify criticizing Iran for doing the same thing? Certainly nations such as Russia and China would be even less willing to support the West’s opposition to Iran.

So the more international support Iran has, the harder it is for the U.S. to persuade the UN to slap sanctions on Iran. And even if the UN did press forward with sanctions, they would be much harder to enforce when other nations continue to trade in a show of support for Iran.

Iran’s success in garnering support from developing nations can also be seen in its growing friendship with Venezuela.

Venezuela was one of three nations that opposed referring Iran to the Security Council. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited Iran in July, he received the golden High Medallion of the Islamic Republic. “We stand by Iran at every moment, in any situation,” Mr. Chavez said during his visit. He also said that he would support developing a nuclear energy program within Mercosur, the South American trade bloc Venezuela recently joined.

Tehran’s continued successful opposition to the world’s only superpower is adding impetus to other nations developing nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes.

The problem with those peaceful purposes lies with what Einstein said about mankind: Man’s modes of thinking have not changed. A look into South Africa’s history shows that a nuclear program intended for peaceful purposes can quickly transform into a deadly weapons program.

In 1957, the U.S. agreed to provide South Africa with its first nuclear reactor and enriched uranium supply. In 1971, the South African government approved research into peaceful nuclear explosions for mining resources. Three years later, the research program transformed into a weapons program for a nuclear deterrent, which produced a nuclear bomb in 1982.

South Africa finally dismantled its program and destroyed its weapons in the early ’90s. But who can say it won’t start up another weapons program if it starts enriching uranium again? What about Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina? The technology is available, thanks to scientists such as Abdul Qadeer Khan, former head of Pakistan’s nuclear program, who admitted to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea among others. The U.S. couldn’t stop that knowledge from spreading.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 27 nuclear reactors are currently under construction, mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Nations are either warring or preparing for war. It wouldn’t take much of a threat for a nation with the capability to produce a nuclear bomb to start a weapons program. With South Africa in the 1970s, it was the threat of invasion of Namibia by Soviet-backed forces that spurred it to build a bomb. This scenario could be played out in any part of the world—Latin America, Africa, Europe and Asia.

Take Asia as another example. Malaysia announced on August 28 it may investigate the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as well. But with a neighbor such as North Korea armed with nuclear weapons, how long would it take Malaysia to start its own weapons program for protection? Then there is Japan, which, already having nuclear capability and technology, is now talking of developing nuclear weapons.

Nuclear technology is becoming an increasingly common commodity. History proves that what weapons mankind develops, it will use. All that is needed is a trigger.

The multiplying factor making the nuclear danger that much more acute is the possession of nuclear technology by countries with unstable, erratic leaders at their helm. Take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, for example, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and wants to create a chaotic environment for the return of his savior. How much compunction would he have about using nuclear weapons to hasten the fulfillment of his goals?

Einstein was right: People’s thinking hasn’t changed, and the world is drifting toward nuclear mayhem. Only now, thanks to Iran’s boldness, we are actually cruising toward it.