So, Iran gets the bomb. What's it going to do with it? Iran doesn't have ICBMs, so it's no threat to the west. The worst it can do is get into a nuclear standoff with nuclear-armed Israel, which would simply maintain the status quo.

Israel and Iran are two sides of the same coin. Rather than getting het up about the middle east, we're better off returning to a policy of containment and letting the savages beat each other with whatever weapons they can lay their hands on.

Iran probably does want the bomb as a protection against aggression. However, it definitely wants a civilian nuclear programme since it has a rapidly growing economy and large population with declining oil production. The more energy Iran can obtain from non-oil/gas sources, the longer it will have some left over for export - and that is vitally important to western economies!

Interestingly, a number of other Middle Eastern nations are now considering nuclear power despite the common argument that they have massive oil/gas reserves and so do not need this. See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article624855.ece

If the west was really worried about an islamic bomb then they would have moved heaven and earth to rid Pakistan of its weapons. Remember that the regime in Tehran - that became so recognised for extremism with its fatwa on Salman Rushdie - was only reacting to demonstrations in Pakistan over his book. The fatwa was an attempt to retake leadership on this issue. The real whackos are in increasingly unstable Pakistan - so we already have a serious problem there. The beating of drums about Iran is just preparation for an attack to prevent the growth of Shia influence in the Gulf. There is a good review of recent events here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/index_np.html

Good article.
I guess what it also shows is how incredibly complex the politics of the Middle East really are and that there are no simplistic binary solutions like the "axis of evil"

I would also say that there are just as many "religious" inspired loonies in the USA who are the mirror image of Iranian fanatics.
Recent and continuing stories re Christian fundamentalist efforts to "christianize" the USA armed forces at all levels is testimony to this. This phenomena being part of the frightfully psychotic end-time armageddon (second coming of "jesus") script that tens of millions of dreadfully sane USA citizens subscribe too.
A script that as far as I know has significant support at high levels of the Bush Administration.

For a different view of Iran's bomb read one of Israel leading military historians and scholars. Martin Van Creveld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has got both the knowledge and analytical skills to tackle the issue. As one of the world’s leading military analysts he has got a good track record of knowing what he is writing about. Best of all he is an Israeli patriot without an ounce of hatred or opposition to the United States. He cannot be accused of being an apologist for the unpalatable Iranian regime. His article was published yesterday in one of the world's best Jewish newspapers, the New York FORWARD.

The URL is http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/

The article is called : The world can live with a nyclear Iran

South Africa in the 1980s spent $300b dollars developing uranium enrichment and building 6 bombs. The cost of this exercise was probably a major contributing factor to the change of regime.

The building and running of neuclear power plants and running them can be a cost effective exercise as long as "cheap" enriched uranium is supplied by existing suppliers and the products removed and processed by the same.

The building and running of an enrichment process for such a small demand cannot be economically viable and thus can only be a cover for a weapons program.

As South Africa discovered, that there was no circumstance where using the weapon would be better than not using it, (and subsequently dismantled their weapons and program), so Iran, will probably find out in the next few years as their economy is erroded by sanctions, that the testosterone value is not worth the price of their very expensive hood ornament.

As the Iranians have deliberately spread their operations around, so making air strikes ineffective, short of an invasion, sanctions especially technical will probably be the most effective in the long term.

'A nuclear Iran's first effect will be on the region, risking triggering a dangerous race for the bomb all around the area.'

Really? How? Given that Israel already has a bomb wouldn't logic dictate the race has already begun and Iran is merely the second starter off the blocks?

..., but it certainly is manoeuvering its power breaking pawns on the board of the Middle East, covertly and expertly. Its involvement in last summer's war in Lebanon, as well as its history of state-sponsored terrorism in the region, and its perceived presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are testimony to the fact Iran doesn't passively observe developments in the area.'

Christ! Much the same could be said of similar actions by the only nuclear power in the region. But that power does 'openly embark on military adventurism'.

So who is the greater threat to peace in the region?

A nuclear power who indulges in military adventurism, occupies and suppresses it's neighbours, steals their land, sponsers and undertakes blatant acts of state terrorism, and uses it's links to the world's greatest power to covertly and openly boast it's military and expand it's borders.

Or a politically weak disorganised ineffectual aspiring nuclear power?

Articles such as this perpretrate the ongoing inbalance and instability in the mid east... and that only benefits the region's only nuclear power. Israel.

It was Israel who helped get nuclear material to Pakistan via South Africa. Who said so? A former FBI whistle blower and she had the documents and bills of lading to prove it.

There is only one nation on earth that has ever been deranged enough to nuke innocent people and did.

Will the whiners about Persia just get over it. They have never attacked anyone in the last 200 years and are not likely too.

Just leave them alone, they are not breaking any law.

Unlike us.

Solthechef

The article by Creveld is flawed.

1. It does not consider whether Iran will provide nuclear material to the terrorist organisations that they bankroll.
2. It neglects the fact that Iran doesn’t need to launch their weapons to do major damage to the region. Iran can merely threaten to launch weapons thus bringing neighbouring countries to full alert. This has the possibility of destroying Israel’s and other Middle Eastern countries economies. Exactly like bomb threats, every aggressive move Iran makes will have to be seriously responded to, up to the point of evacuating all citizens to bomb shelters.

Ahmedinejhad is a completely unpredictable character. He thinks he communicates with the Mehdi who has been hiding in a well for 1100 years. He drops letters into the well to communicate with him. His primary goal is to bring back the Mehdi.

ShadowMinister.

We all know who sanctions hurt the most. In this case it is without doubt going to affect the pro western groups within Iranian society. Even though they punish the innocent extremely disproportionately, sanctions do sometimes work on countries which are run by pragmatists. The Iranian leadership are sooo far from pragmatists that they could be considered poster children for the antonym. Irans leadership believe without doubt that they are doing God’s work. Sanctions will not deter them , it will only make their people suffer.

The argument that Iran only wants a peaceful nuclear program is laughable. No one believes it, it is merely a smokescreen for the soft left to feel good about the fact that yet again they are going to stand by and do nothing. It also masks the virulent hate that many soft lefters have for Israel and the US.

Keith

That is pure apologism. Israel is not expanding its borders. In fact it has given back the Gaza Strip recently. Israel has a history of returning the land it has taken in return for peace. Just ask the Egyptians about the Sinai.

You are forgetting that ALL of the land Israel occupies was taken after Arab armies invaded Israel. Three times. Israel is attacked daily by rockets supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Israel has recently provided evidence that the Syrian regime has North Korean nuclear material. But you call Israel a threat to peace. Are you MAD.

How do you do anything ‘covertly and openly’? Show me any evidence of Israel’s military adventurism. Israel has been fighting to protect itself, whilst surrounded by enemies, for 60 years. Yet they are still attacked daily. I would like to know what you would do if extremists lobbed missiles into your home day after day.

Its soft lefters like you who make things worse. There is virtually unanimous agreement that Iran is lying about it nuclear program. Iran wants Nuclear weapons. You are helping them get them and it will blow up in all of our faces if they do.

Marilyn,

Your hatred of the US is obvious but your logic is a far less so. It seems you have been visiting the soft left websites. I’ve seen the ‘Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in 200 years’ quote many times now.

First Iran attacks Israel every day through their funding, arming and training of Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organisations. Iran is also sending weapons and special forces to train and fight the coalition in Iraq.

Secondly, the Islamic Republic is only 30 years old, so it is pointless to talk about what Iran did before then.

Thirdly, they are breaking the law by developing Nuclear Weapons. Ahmedinejhad has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Wake up. Iran doesn’t need a peaceful nuclear program. Oil based power is sooo much cheaper for a country like Iran that has its own oil. So why do they want nuclear power stations?

Paul.L

Like many opponents of Israel you seem to misunderstand the Israeli Psyche. [That's one good reason I always recommend to my Palestinian friends and their supporter to catch as many Israeli films as possible.] It is a common error to project the impact Israel's bomb has on the Arab regimes on to the Israeli public. Last year with thousands of Hezbollah rockets landing on Israel the economy and even the stock exchange continued to boom. Israelis are not easily intimdated. [Disclosure: I am an Israeli.]

The Iranian regime is far from being irrational as its continual trade (even in weapons) with Israel indicates. It fully understands that either directly attacking Israel or even providing nuclear weapons to Hezbollah [which I Presume is what you refer to as a terrorist organisation.[ Will cost it dearly. The Iranians know very well that Israel has got the capability to obliterate their country even after a successful Iranian first strike. That's why Van Creveld and a substantial section of Israel's intelligence community are sleeping soundly.

PaulL

You contradict yourself in your first few sentences.

'Israel is not expanding its borders.'

'You are forgetting that ALL of the land Israel occupies was taken after Arab armies invaded Israel.'

So Israel taking land is not expanding it's borders ...according to your logic? And you reckon I'm an apologist?

No I'm not mad. But I question the logic of anyone who accepts Israel isn't illegally nuclear armed and is not a menace to peace in the region. As I do the logic of anyone who sees the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are not an extention of it's borders. I also question the balance of anyone who accepts it's ok for one side to be illegally nuclear armed but not the other.

Oh btw I'm not a leftie. I've been a member of the Liberal Party and have always had a very liberal outlook on life. My views represent a liberal democratic world view which is quite balanced and arrived at after consideration of all points of view. Which you would not be familiar with because it is is quite unlike your extremist view of justifying or ignoring Israeli agression in the mid east. And Israel is not a liberal democracy as your mates try to portray.

You can do some things covertly and other things openly... Did you miss the obvious?

Keep up the good work, Marylin, your philosophy is backed by many believers in the Realpolitik of the Balance of Power.

Bit like the Martins and the McCoys, who if we can't get the wealthy arogant Martins to disarm, arm the McCoys to match.

Similar to what has been allowed between India and Pakistan.

Reckon Bismarck would have thought about it, as he used his Realpolitik to work in ways to suit.

As when he was annoyed by the peristent war-mad French in 1778, assembling his brand new long range guns on the French border and firing them all the way to Paris, telling the French he was not in mind to take France right now, because it could set the whole of Europe aflame.

Bismarck died in 1908, and it is said that if he had been alive in 1914, WW1 would never have begun. Thus as Maynard Keynes later mentioned, WW2 might never have begun.

Only wish we had a Bismarck or a Keynes alive and aboard right now, for they both exhibit the real Realpolitik we need right now.

PaulL

You ask what I'd do if extremists lobbed missiles into my home day after day.

Silly question really. But you won't be able to accept the obvious.

Simple I'd stop killing them, stop assassinating their leaders, stop suppressing them, stop stealing and settling their land, stop building a fence around their land, stop stealing their water, stop interfering in their internal politics, stop arresting them and detaining them indefinately, stop all the pettiness of the occupation checkpoints, stop portraying them as the aggressors and genuinely deal with the peace terms offered by the Arab League.

Quite simple really. And until you do those very reasonable things,why don't you stop whinging to the rest of us about how your neighbours lob bombs onto you and try to match your military and nuclear might.

If he was alive I'd ask the Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat how he forced the Israelis to the peace table and the world eventually, notably the US and the USSR, put pressure on the Israelis to settle...and give back the Sinai. It wasn't as you try to portray a magnamious act. Similar with Jordan. But not so with Syria, Lebanon or Palestine. Why do you need to try to twist things? I am very familiar with the modern history of the region...and I don't accept blindly Israeli propaganda.

Keith

There is never any excuse for DELIBERATELY trying to blow up a school bus full of children. The Palestinian terrorists have tried this a number of times. The Israelis gave back the Gaza Strip yet they continue to receive mortars and rockets from that territory every day. Palestinians don’t even bother attacking the people responsible for Israel’s decision making, they just attack any Jew they can find, man woman or CHILD.

The Arab League does not speak for the Palestinians. The Palestinians aren’t even sure who speaks for them. At Camp David in 2000 the Israeli Prime Minister offered a better deal than the one the Arab League presented and the Palestinians knocked it back. Groups like Hamas don’t want a separate Palestinian state. They want Israel as well. Hamas is part of the Global Islamo-Facsist order. Is it any wonder Israel seeks to deal with (reasonable by comparison) Fattah and Abbas. Hamas have just recently tried to assassinate this man.

Israel is surrounded by Arab states bent on its destruction. Hamas believes that with help from Iran, through Hezbollah, they can drive all Jews from the Middle East.

When you suggest that Israel should stop ensuring its safety through arresting terrorists and making sure that weapons and explosives don’t enter the country it is clear you are an apologist for terrorists.

Israel has numerous times offered cease fires and other methods to begin the peace process but they do not have a partner in peace. Hamas is not interested in negotiating with Israel. Neither is Iran or Syria.

You have an incredibly distorted view of history if you think that Anwar Sadat forced Israel to the negotiating table. ROFLMAO. Egypt was soundly beaten in three wars of invasion. When they finally realised they were going to get nowhere militarily and that they no longer preferred the Soviets to the US, Sadat decided that making peace with Israel was the best solution. The victory in 1973 was so absolute in the end that he had no other choice. Who is giving you your opinions?

Bushbred

You seem to be very confused.

Otto von Bismarck wasn’t born in 1778 and so he would have had difficulty organising the shelling of Paris. In fact guns which could shoot that far weren’t invented then. Bismarck was born in 1815 and died in 1898.

He was an aristocrat and was vitally interested in the continuing dominance of the aristocrats in Europe especially the Royals. He also worked to assure Prussian pre-eminence in Central Europe.

His famous quote was "the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of majorities — that was the great mistake from 1848 to 1849 — but by iron and blood."

The Realpolitik of which you speak is an illusion. Bismarck was in many respects a typical modern politician of the type we see all the time.

He had little regard for ethics, morals or legalities. Realpolitik was the tool Bismarck used to achieve Prussian dominance in Germany, “as he manipulated political issues to antagonize other countries, possibly with the intention of war. Characteristic of Bismarck's political action was an almost Machiavellian policy”.

You castigate the militarist French for the Franco-Prussian war, yet Bismarck provoked this war to break French dominance in Europe. At the same time you assert that Versailles was too oppressive on the Germans.

Keynes has been acknowledged as an important economist but one who did not fully understand modern economies.

What is most ridiculous about your claims with respect to Realpolitik is your support for the extinguishment of the Jewish state. Surely this is a dogmatic/ideological position if ever there was one.

I wonder whether you think we should also continue to deal with the cruel dictators in Burma who are currently gunning down peaceful protesters all the while protected by the Chinese who hold the UN hostage on this and many other issues. Is that Realpolitik enough for you? Explain please why the whole world should be bound by the UN when it is only China which is getting in the way

PaulL

You point to a couple of dispicible acts by a few terrorists and attribute that behaviour to all Palestinians. Why do you make such disgraceful generalisations? That's racist.

Why do you ignore the fact Israel suppresses every Palestinian?
Why do you ignore and attempt to justify Israel's aggressiveness towards it's neighbours by pointing to the actions of a few Palestinians?

Why do you lie about the comparison between Camp David and the Arab League offer?

Hamas was the democratically elected government of the Palestinians and I am familiar with their election manifesto...so don't try the usual Israeli propaganda rubbish.

Israel is doing exactly what you accuss the Arabs of wanting to do. ie take their enemies lands. But you will never ever take that as reasonable and logical. You can't you are a propagandist.

It is fine for Israel to ensure its safety. But it is wrong try to do this in territories it illegally occupies.

I agree the Israeli action in Palestinian lands is state sponsered terrorism and 'it is clear you are an apologist for(state sponsered) terrorists'.

Israel hasn't a partner in peace because it won't return or doesn't want to return the occupied territories, especially those it is building a very provactive wall around. Until that happens there will never be peace...until sheer weight of numbers or a massive US recession which causes a lack of funding will eventuate in Israel's demise.

With regard to Sadat when the war was lost militarily the Soviets threatened to become involved by sending Soviet troops and equipment, that scared the crap out of everyone (Who had a reasonable world view that is.) and the US twisted the Israeli's arm to make a reasonable peace. Simple as that. So by winning a war the Israeli's were forced to make peace... by much wiser heads. A bit like what happened recently in Lebanon. Btw are those Israeli pow's returned yet?

My opinions are formed by reading all sides and making a judgement on that basis. I do not just blindly accept the Israeli version of events. They simply lie too much.

Paull, reckon you need a new pair of reading glasses, because on re-reading my last thread the only date I mentioned was
when Bismark's Germans crossed the French border.

Anyway, both Bismarck and Keynes are regarded by most political historians as the greatest forward thinkers of the age.

Further as Realpolitik was originally a science during the so-called Concert of Europe to avoid major war wherever possible, wonder where your info' came from?

Not like the Concert both Bush and Cheney attune to at present, anything to blast Iran so they can get the oil.

Their confidence lies not so much in Realpolitik commonsense but in American firepower, selfishly built up while banned in other countries.

Unfortunately it is also a power that has not prevented the rise of terrorism but built it up a hundredfold, the presence of a nuclear Israel also very much adding to it.

The real scary thing of course, is that the more hateful rhetoric the US exudes towards the terrorists the more surety that time is on their side to use mini-nuclear bombs instead of just ordinary street bombs.

Just wonder if we could try Mandelas's reasoning and try a bit of forgiving and admitting - because after all as more than one CIA leader has admitted, much of the terrorist hatred against us is related to blowback or payback.

michael_in_adelaide

I doubt that a nuclear armed Iran would embark on a nuclear war. I question whether they would even give bombs to terrorists.

However my fear is that the Iranian government may be UNABLE to keep its bombs out of the hands of terrorists. It seems to me very possible that Iran's nuclear guardians, motivated by cash and ideology, will hand over nukes or nuclear technologies to Muslim terrorists.

Obviously the same considerations apply to Pakistan with even more force. One of their foremost nuclear scientists, AQ Khan, has in fact sold nuclear know-how and, perhaps, equipment, to Muslim regimes.

It does look as if it is only a matter of time before terrorists get their hands on a nuke or three.

I'm at a loss to know what we do about it. The stock left wing answers – address the grievances of Muslims, etc – probably won't work because short of agreeing to live in a Caliphate what appeasement is possible?

Sancho,

Iran seems to be getting missile technology from North Korea. Once they get bombs it would only be a matter of time before they had delivery systems. In fact they may get the missiles before their bomb is ready.

So, yes, Iranian nukes could definitely pose a threat to Europe and the US. But I doubt the regime is mad enough to risk nuclear annihilation. I think the danger of terrorists getting their hands on Iranian nukes AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT is the bigger danger.

Stevebmeyer

'I think the danger of terrorists getting their hands on Iranian nukes...'

So should we get together a coalitional and invade or allow and support Israel to attack the soverignity of Iran ... as is their usual practice? Hah! bound to fail and futher isolate Israel in world opinion.
Especially when we look at what happened in Lebanon where Israel was forced into a hummuliating withdrawal and where it failed to achieve any of it's propaganda or military aims?
Then remember what was part of the reasoning the coalition invaded Iraq. ... to prevent Saddam's regime from supplying WMD's to terrorists. At the time I like just about everyone else supported the idea.

This time I am going to be a little more sceptical and will question the motivation of people suggesting such possibilities and solutions.

So with the west actually having prevented terrorists launching further 9/11's and you agree it unlikely Iran will initiate nuclear war who exactly do you think will be threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons?

And yep addressing the genuine greivences of the Palestinians in a sensible manner would go a long way to solving mid east threats to peace.

Bushbred

Friday, 28 September 2007
You wrote
“Reckon Bismarck would have thought about it, as he used his Realpolitik to work in ways to suit. As when he was annoyed by the persistent war-mad French in 1778, assembling his brand new long range guns on the French border and firing them all the way to Paris”
and
“Bismarck died in 1908”

Iran is clearly working towards building nuclear weaponry. Your assertions that they can be trusted are plain wishful thinking. Ahmadinejhad has made his feelings about Israel very clear. This is a man who believes he communicates with a 1200 religious figure who lives in a well. That is a fact. Iran is the primary backer of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Allowing Iran to pursue their nuclear program will lead to more fighting in the Middle East, not less. It is not just Israel that feels threatened either. Many of the Sunni Arab states surrounding Iran are equally fearful of a nuclear armed Iran.

The UN has been a failure as a global diplomatic initiative. Its failure stems from Russia and China’s inclusion in the Security Council. These two countries have used their positions to protect the world’s worst dictators, including Jong IL, Mugabe, the Junta in Burma and others. They knew that the best way to protect themselves was to retain friends no matter how despicable.

Your ‘PEACE IN OUR TIME” stuff is just as ridiculous today as when Chamberlain first uttered it. There is NO negotiating with terrorists; they simply aren’t interested in talking. In any case, pandering to tyrants just encourages them. Hitler is a perfect example.

Do you really think these fundamentalists are going to give up on their caliphate if we ask nicely?

Keith,

Are you seriously suggesting that Iran isn’t trying to produce nuclear weapons?

There will be no invasion of Iran, air strikes will be the worst case scenario.

Solving the Palestinian mess will not help, it will only encourage the Islamo-Fascists in their belief that they can achieve all of their goals because we in the West are SOFT.

PaulL

Where ever did you get the idea I think Iran isn't intent on nuclear weapons? Are you deliberately misreading my posts?

All I am suggesting is that Israel and Iran are treated equally. And you don't believe that should happen...do you?

And tell me what would your reaction be if I suggested Iran should negate Israel's nuclear advantage by launching, as a worst case, airstrikes targetting Israel's nuclear development?

There is no need for an answer for you'd simply begin a screeching whining campaign and you'd end up alledging I'm anti-semitic.

The mess in Palestine is continued by the Israeli's and it is also their mess. It is an Israeli mess. Why do you think the rest of the world's thinking and positioning should be equated with Israeli thinking on the issue? We 'softies' in the West have long realised that 'the eye for an eye', military adventurism and military occupation never solve any problems. We've long realised they only cause and accentuate problems. You Israeli supporters need to adopt the true western values of our 'soft' Liberal Democracy if what you want for Israel is our continuing support. I would have thought you'd have learn't that simple lesson after the debacle in Lebanon.

Keith

Mate I'm reasonably happy with the state of affairs. I would suggest that the whining is coming from you.

You're arguing that an unstable dictatorship should have nuclear parity with Israel. And why? So Iran can, by some overt offensive act, force Israel to adopt a solution acceptable to the Islamic world, and you.

Well aren’t you a hypocrite. I thought you were against ‘military adventurism’, but it seems that’s only the case when you’re not getting your own way. Iran’s whole strategy is military adventurism of the highest order. It could plunge the Middle East into war, yet Iran is banking on the soft-left support in the western world to evade the consequences.

So I take it that you don’t support nuclear non proliferation then, since it would be appallingly hypocritical of you to do so.

The mess in the ME was caused by TWO protagonists and anyone with any sense knows it will take concessions from both sides to solve it.

Israel doesn’t need the support of the loony-left. If you had any sense you would know that the loony-left have virtually no political power or support anyway. Israel doesn’t even need the Western worlds support to survive and prosper in the Middle East and its not as if they are in ANY danger of losing it any way.

Israel is a democracy. Iran is a dictatorship where they torture, imprison or murder anyone who doesn’t follow the program, Homosexuals, female activists, opposition politicians. But then I suppose you lefties don’t mind a bit of purging in support of the greater good.

The left thought the Communists were good blokes and howled down Reagan as a liar and a propagandist when he tried to tell the world about the evils of Communism. ALL of his claims were borne out in the end when the wall came down.

Ho Chi Minh called the leftist supporters of North Vietnam his 'useful idiots’. No points for guessing what Ahmedinejhad would make of you and your western lifestyle?

So do you think Hamas should get nuclear weapons too? How about Hezbollah?

Keith wrote:

>>Then remember what was part of the reasoning the coalition invaded Iraq. ... to prevent Saddam's regime from supplying WMD's to terrorists. At the time I like just about everyone else supported the idea.>>

That puts me one step ahead of you. I never bought that argument. If the issue was Saddams's nukes, assuming he had any, there were other ways of dealing with the threat. One way would have been to destroy any site that even looked as if it might contain nukes. We could also have put a much more robust inspection regime in place.

The WMD story was an obvious fabrication from start to finish.

But the issue with Iran and Pakistan is different. I do NOT think they will intentionally hand over nukes to terrorists.

My fear, and I think it a reasonable one, is that they are both so unstable, and so drenched in an Islamo-fascist ideology, that they will be UNABLE to prevent their nukes falling into terrorist hands. In the light of what we now know about the AQ Khan network you can hardly deny the danger.

In the case of Iran and Pakistan Juvenal's old question, who shall guard the guardians themselves,* has new relevance.

* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Whatever you may think of Israel, it is unlikely their nukes will end up in the hands of terrorists who want to blow up Melbourne. The same CANNOT be said about Pakistani or Iranian nukes.

I think you are willfully ignoring the dangers posed by nukes in the hands of such unstable dictatorships.

BTW I suspect the Indian Government has contingency plans in case Pakistan implodes. At least I hope they do.

My guess is that if Pakistan implodes India with US help will destroy nuclear sites.

PaulL

Your grizzles:

‘Israel is attacked daily by rockets supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.’
’Israel has recently provided evidence that the Syrian regime has North Korean nuclear material. But you call Israel a threat to peace. Are you MAD.’
’Israel has been fighting to protect itself, whilst surrounded by enemies, for 60 years. Yet they are still attacked daily. I would like to know what you would do if extremists lobbed missiles into your home day after day.’

You claim:

‘Mate I'm reasonably happy with the state of affairs. I would suggest that the whining is coming from you.’

Now you show me my whining?

You really are behaving the blustering clown with such outlandishly incoherent and demonstrably false comments.

Iran may be a dictatorship but its far from unstable … as you claim. It could be claimed logically it is far more stable than Israel as it doesn’t indulge in military attacks, invasions and illegal occupations of it’s neighbours. Unlike Israel it at least confines it’s dictatorial ambitions to inside it’s own borders and media comment.

The mess Israel has exacerbated will only be solved when Israel gives up its claims to the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. But you’ll never agree with that.

Israel may be a democracy in name but it is ruled currently by a coalition, in fact I’d go so far to say it is now very much a one party state. The electors really have no choice when it comes to Foreign Relations and Defence.

Just where are you getting your information on Iran? It is quite wrong and if you were to read a bit more widely you’d have a less propagandised view of Iran, how it functions and it’s people. You really do need to open up your mind to the way we liberal democrats in the west think.

Reagan is one of my heroes. He didn’t just warn people about communism…he defeated it when he won the cold war. He was much more liberal than you think. And his opinions on the Mid East would astonish even you.

Ahmedinejhad regards Western Liberal Democrats about the same as the Israel politicians regard us.

I don’t support nuclear proliferation … I’m a realist and think the spread of such is likely wherever one side in an ongoing enmity acquires them.

Israel’s problem in the west long-term isn’t about non support from lefties. It's about a growing realisation by liberal democrats, like me, that the Israeli position is an indefensible one in relation to its behaviour towards its neighbours. That'll erode support politically in Western Democracies over time. Decline in financial and military aid will follow.

You know Hezbollah and Hamas would lose total support if Israel was to accept the existence of a Palestinian state set at pre ’67 borders. We're all coming to that realisation.

You know longer-term it would be best for Israel to accept the Arab peace proposal and confine itself to the pre ’67 borders. If it doesn’t, inevitably in consequence, it will lose western support and its neighbours will overrun and totally destroy it. For that not to happen Israel will need western support to ensure its security…and it might surprise you that I think it entirely reasonable the West should assist Israel in ensuring its security… but it will require Israel to face hard facts. ie It cannot continue indefinitely it’s occupation and land stealing and expect continued support from the Western Liberal Democracies.

Stevenlmeyer,

I can show you ‘on the public record’ where I supported the invasion of Iraq…before the invasion. Can you show me similar with regard to your opinion and subsequent opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

I reckon the nukes in Israel are already in the hands of terrorists…state terrorists who will employ them if, when and where it suits them without one iota of regard for the opinion of the rest of us. And that makes them as unpredictable as the Iranians.

I don’t know of anyone who would possibly think Melbourne a target worthy of nuking…but then again I’m a Queenslander and could reasonably argue both the position for or against a nuke attack on Melbourne. :- )

keith,

I agree with you verbatim on just about everything you write. One thing I can't understand though is the Liberal's unquestioning support for Israel. I'm a liberal democrat too. I support the government in most policies (I like Rudd too but question his ability to keep his extremeist colleges in check). But why would a party guided by essentially humanitist ideals support an extremist state like Israel? Even today's SMH had a frightening article about Australia's support for a US attack on Iran:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-garners-support-for-strike-on-iran/2007/10/01/1191091029426.html

Those people who bleat on about Israel's peaceful nature might take note of the quote from Seymor Hersh, a well connected US journalist:

"The Israelis, of course, have gone bananas. They're very upset about the idea of not going … They want us to go. And they want us to hit hard."

Except for the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby, how can support for these people be justified?

Unfortunately, I think you badly underestimate the way the pro-Israel lobby is distorting liberal democratic policy around the world. Even the French seem to have taken leave of their senses!

Also, those people who believe Israel is content withing its own borders might read Olmert's speech to the US congress last year:

http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2710

"I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."

Keith

You’re still whining.

You very helpfully listed some of my points and then didn’t bother trying to disprove any of them.

Your claim that Iran is more stable is laughable and totally ignores their involvement in Iraq, Israel and elsewhere. Just because Iranian jets are not doing bombing runs doesn’t mean they aren’t prosecuting a war. Iranian operatives, weapons and cash are the backbone of the Shia militias in Iraq. Iranian rockets form Hezbollah’s front line of attack on Israel.

You clearly don’t have a clue. The moment the Palestinian Leadership renounces their campaign of terror, I’ll support the demand to end Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. That’s the real long term solution and the only way forward.

Your belief that “Hezbollah and Hamas would lose total support if Israel was to accept the existence of a Palestinian state set at pre ’67 borders” is tremendously naïve. Hezbollah and Hamas have very little support now, outside the Muslim world. A victory over Israel on this issue would encourage them to greater terrorism in their pursuit of their ultimate goal, which is a ONE state solution ( A Muslim one). Every time Israel has pulled back, the terrorists have just brought the fight forward.

Some quotes from Hamas’s charter,

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours."

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The IRM believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

You said “open up your mind to the way we liberal democrats in the west think.” Western liberal thought, especially in foreign relations is the problem, its just totally lost perspective. When liberals begin to champion tyrants and dictators over democrats I think its time to admit you are no longer liberal.

Iran is the most serious threat to stability in the Middle East - a most vociferous opponent of Arab-Israeli peace efforts and also advocate for the destruction of Israel. In October 2005, recently elected President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, stated:

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Ahmadinejad has endlessly repeated this. One observer stated that it is the only time that the aim of destruction of one country by another has been set down in writing.

Iran has its own uranium reserves. In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced this discovery near the central city of Yazd.

Hassan Rowhani who headed talks with Britain, France and Germany until 2005, admitted to Islamic clerics and intellectuals a secret nuclear program had been uncovered in 2002 by the opposition; also that Iran had completed the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake at its Isfahan plant.

In May 2006, UN inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium, higher than the low-enriched material used to generate power and heading toward weapons-grade level in an Iranian research center linked to the military. It (AP, May 13, 2006).

UN Security Council Resolution 1737 (Dec 23, 2006) reported that
Maj Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi, Commander, IRGC (Pasdaran) headed up the 15 member team (each named) involved in ballistic missile and nuclear programmes.

For civilian purposes? Given the country’s enormous reserves of petroleum and gas, this is a nonsense. US intelligence indicates Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons - achieve nuclear capability.

Just this year ...

In January 2007, Iran reached an agreement with North Korea to share data and information the Koreans obtained from their nuclear test in October 2006. Iran also stepped up its research activity in preparation for their own underground nuclear test (Daily Telegraph, January 24, 2007).

cont ...

On February 22, 2007, the IAEA found Iran in violation of a Security Council Resolution 1696 (S/PRST/2006/15, 29/32006) to freeze uranium enrichment. The IAEA are in no doubt that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. In response Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated that Iran would never suspend uranium enrichment.

In August, the IAEA reported Iran was expanding its nuclear program in defiance of the UN. The agency said Iran was operating nearly 2,000 centrifuges, the machines that produce enriched uranium. (New York Times, August 30, 2007)

This month, Iran unveiled a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile already capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. The missile’s range has been improved from 810 to 1,125 miles . The missile, capable of carrying a non-conventional warhead, could be stationed anywhere in Iran. Not only could it reach Israel, but also parts of Europe. (JTA: Breaking News, September 23, 2007)

As early as March 2005, Ukraine admitted exporting cruise missiles to Iran that can carry nuclear weapons

Officials in Tehran confirm Iran will never scrap its nuclear program.

Talks with Europe are aimed at protecting their nuclear achievements; not negotiating any end to them.

Experts calculate three atomic bombs could destroy Israel. The “Palestinian” excuse does not hold scrutiny. The territory and environs would be completely unihabitable ... ..

Iranians repeatedly warn of Ahmadinejad's terrorist, genocidal and nuclear ambitions. Why doesn't the West listen to them?

PaulL

Let's just analyse this conversation.

You've so far called me or suggestted
I'm an apologist,
I'm forgetful,
I'm mad,
I'm a soft leftie,
I support and help terrorists,
I'm against a secure Israel,
I'm a terrorist apologist,
I have a distorted view of history,
I'm not an independant thinker,
I'm soft,
I'm whining,
I'm a hypocrite,
I favour military adventurism,
I favour nuclear proliferation,
I'm a looney-leftie,
I have no sense,
I support the purging of homosexuals, female activists, and opposition politicians,
I don't have a clue,
I'm naive,
I've lost perspectuive,
I support tyrants and dictators.

I think I been quite restrained in my responses:

in calling you a liar
in showing you are contradictory,
in saying you are not balanced
in saying you are illogical.
in suggesting you are one-eyed
in calling you a propagandist.
in saying you are whining and grizzling
in showing your attitude is racist.
in saying you were an apologist
in saying 'you'd simply begin a screeching whining campaign and you'd end up alledging I'm anti-semitic.'
in saying 'You really are behaving the blustering clown with such outlandishly incoherent and demonstrably false comments.'

Now tell me why anyone with any sense would bother to read our posts or take either of us or our points of view seriously?

:-)

dane

I continually harange Liberal party members and elected representatives with my views. Do you? Sometimes they will listen if there is enough pressure for particular points of view. I'm not currently a member of the Liberal Party but when I was it wasn't 'the broad church' it once was and we 'wets' didn't get much of a look in.
However in relation to mid east matters both major parties are under enormous pressure from vested interests and the only way any party will deviate from it's current policies on Palestine and the Palestinians is if there is a great movement or even interest across the electorate.

Fear not the US will not attack Iran nor will it support an Israeli attack on Iran. The stakes are too high for that would risk far too many American lives in America. Such action will result in an increased support for and acts of terror on the US mainland and it's missions around the world. It would also destroy much of the recent acknowledged advances in Iraq. The significance of the latter is that there would be an immediate and general uprising across the Arab world and Iraq would be it'a immediate focus, instability in hitherto relatively stable and west friendly Arab states would occur and world oil prices would soar to impossible levels so that the world economy would collapse.

That was expected with the US intervention in Iraq but it didn't occur because Saddam was such a blustering fake, which the Arab world soon realised. Iran and it's leadership are not the same kettle of fish they are much more widely accepted and respected. An attack by anyone on Iran would be a disaster for the Western Liberal Democracies, and we all realise that, even George Bush.

Israeli leaders have been quite consistant about Greater Israel and the destruction of Palestine and Palestinians.

Thanks for your support.

ps Rudd has the exact same view of Israel and Palestine as Bob 'weepie' Hawke.

Keith,

I you'd bother to read my posts you would note that I have addressed your claims paragraph by paragraph. You still haven't attempted to back up any of your claims with any evidence. It all just statement of opinion.

If you really are a sensitive little petal, don't dish it out in the first place. Your most recent post to Dane is a perfect example. You claim that Israels desire to keep all of Palestine is well known.Yet you provide no evidence for this fact.

Of course if you go to an Israeli settler website you might see stuff like that, but the settlers don't make policy in Israel and they don't have much support either.

You contradict yourself all the time. You claim that the Wall is a land grab as it is the future boundary of Israel. Yet this means that 95% of Palestine is outside the new Israel.

So rather than cataloging perceived slights why don't you try and debate the issues. Starting with the two I brought up.

Paul

Your Questions: NB All Answered.

Are you MAD? Answered.
‘How do you do anything ‘covertly and openly’?’ Answered
‘Show me any evidence of Israel’s military adventurism.’ Answered
‘I would like to know what you would do if extremists lobbed missiles into your home day after day.’ Answered
‘Are you seriously suggesting Iran isn’t trying to produce nuclear weapons?’ Answered
‘Who's giving you your opinions?’ Answered
‘You're arguing an unstable dictatorship should have nuclear parity with Israel. And why?’ Answered
‘No points for guessing what Ahmedinejhad would make of you and your western lifestyle?’ Answered
’So do you think Hamas should get nuclear weapons too?’ NO
‘How about Hezbollah?’ NO

My unanswered questions:

‘Given that Israel already has a bomb …and Iran is merely the second starter off the blocks?’
‘So who is the greater threat to peace in the region? A nuclear power ….or an aspiring nuclear power?’
‘Why do you need to twist things? ( regarding historical events)’
‘Why do you need to make such disgraceful (Racist) generalisations?’
‘Why do you ignore the fact Israel suppresses every Palestinian?’
’Why do you ignore and attempt to justify Israel's aggressiveness … by pointing to the actions of a few Palestinians?’
’Why do you lie about the comparison between Camp David and Arab League offer?’
‘Btw are those Israeli pow's returned yet?’
‘Where did you get the idea I think Iran isn't intent on nuclear weapons?’
‘Are you deliberately misreading my posts?’
’… Israel and Iran are treated equally. And you don't believe that should happen...do you?’
’And tell me what would your reaction be if I suggested Iran should negate Israel's nuclear advantage…, air strikes targeting Israel's nuclear development?’
‘Why do you think the rest of the world's thinking and positioning should be equated with Israeli thinking …? (In regard to Palestine)’
‘Now you show me my whining?’
‘Just where are you getting your information on Iran?’
‘Now tell me why anyone with any sense would bother to read our posts or take either of us or our points of view seriously?’

What was that about debating issues raised? :-)

Paul,

It’s the sort of thing that is often printed in the West’s respected liberal democratic media. Not great headlines nor front page, but not propaganda either. We see it as honest reporting that gives both sides and allows us to make up our own mind.
It’s a perfect example of how we liberal democrats in the west are allowed to reach a thoughtful balanced position.

‘For Gaza’s Young at Play, Fields Can Be Deadly

GAZA — The three Abu Ghazala fathers were in mourning, …watching … the fields of watermelon and eggplant in which their children had died.
The children — Yehiya, 12, Mahmoud, 9, and Sara, 9 — were tending goats and playing tag on Aug. 29 when an Israeli shell or rocket blew them apart. …
The Israeli Army said the children were playing near a launcher used to send Qassam rockets into Israel …
The Israelis, who contend they must do everything they can to stop rockets from falling on innocent Israelis, say they did not realize that the targets in this case were children, except when it was too late. The Abu Ghazalas do not defend the rocket fire from their fields.
Since June 1, 18 Palestinians from Gaza under the age of 19 have been killed by Israeli fire of some kind: 7 under the age of 15, not counting a year-old baby who died waiting at a checkpoint, and 11 between the ages of 15 and 18, according to figures kept by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group.
Capt. Noa Meir, …although the children had been killed by ground fire, she offered an interview with an Israeli fighter pilot, … “The moment we see that there is any doubt that all the people in the vicinity are armed, our policy is to cancel the mission,” .’

I wonder about the death of that year-old baby at that checkpoint.

Now what was that you said about blowing up children on a bus?

For further balance tell me how many Israeli children have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza in the last 10 years?

The moral and personal issues aside, the reason Israel sought nuclear weapons was to prevent the type of all out assault that occurred from all sides in 1967 and 1973.

I have no doubt that if there was an invasion and Israel was losing, it would use or threaten to use its nukes.

If it was attacked with nukes it would suffer enourmous damage and would probably respond in its typical fashion of massive escalation. Guessing that it has 100 - 200 warheads, this would cause unimaginable loss of life.

There is no scenario in which Iran could use the nukes where the outcome would be better for them than not using them. That they are getting them can only be as a perceived deterrent to invasion. They look at Iraq - no nukes - invaded. North Korea - nukes - no invasion.

The real issue is whether the material developed by Iran would find its way to groups with no known home address who could strike with no fear of massive retaliation. I can only guess as to their intentions, but the thought is chilling.

Keith,

You clearly have no idea about the difference between a debate and an exchange of views. Virtually all of your answers are statements of opinion. You’ve not provided any evidence for why you believe these opinions are valid.

Q ‘Why do you need to twist things?’
A: I don’t, show me otherwise.

Q ‘Why do you need to make (Racist) generalisations?’
A: I don’t, show me otherwise.

Q ‘Why do you ignore the fact Israel suppresses every Palestinian?’
A: Because its not true

Q ’Why do you ignore and attempt to justify Israel's aggressiveness
A: Because they are not acts of individuals, they are STATE acts

Q ’Why do you lie about the comparison between Camp David and Arab League offer?
A; I don’t, show me otherwise.

Q ‘Btw are those Israeli pow's returned yet?’
A: NO Are you boasting?

Q ‘Where did you get the idea I think Iran isn't intent on nuclear weapons?’
A: So do you support Iran’s weapons program?

Q ‘Are you deliberately misreading my posts?’
A: NO

Q’… Israel and Iran are treated equally. And you don't believe that should happen...do you?’
A: NO

Q ’And tell me what would your reaction be if I suggested Iran should negate Israel's nuclear advantage
A: I would say you are definitely a military adventurist

Q ‘Why do you think the rest of the world's thinking and positioning should be equated with Israeli thinking
A; What makes you think I do

Q ‘Now you show me my whining?’
A: The first half dozen questions I answered above are whining, they’re not real debating points

Q ‘Just where are you getting your information on Iran?’
A: Mostly from Iranian opposition and exile groups

Q :‘Now tell me why anyone with any sense would bother to read our posts
A: Because I always try and back up my opinions with some EVIDENCE to give real debate, rather than just statements of opinion.

BTW i notice you AGAIN dodged my most recent request to provide EVIDENCE for your 'IDEAS'. You haven't provided evidence for your claim of Israeli military adventurism.

Keith, Shadow Minister,

My guess is that if Israel does go down she'll take the whole of the Middle-East oil infrastructure with her. That's not only the oil fields themselves but ports, storage facilities, pumping stations, the lot.

If she uses "dirty" nukes it might be years before the oil fields can be reclaimed.

Even best case scenario it could be a year or two before M-E oil production recovers. Probably longer.

About a quarter of the world's oil supply could vanish in a radio-active cloud.

Be like me. Become a cyclist. I go almost everywhere on my bicycle and hardly notice the price of petrol.

March 2: Ten people were killed and over 50 were injured in a suicide bombing at 7 pm on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in Beit Yisrael in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a bar-mitzva celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. Six children were among the victims. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.

June 17: A shooting attack near the Kibbutz Eyal junction of the Trans-Israel Highway killed a 7-year-old girl and wounded three members of her family, including her 3-year-old sister. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility.

March 27: Twenty-two people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously - in a suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of the Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility.

June 18: Nineteen people were killed and more than 70 were injured, in a suicide bombing on a bus just outside of Jerusalem. The bus, which was completely destroyed, was traveling from Gilo to Jerusalem and had many students on board. In addition to the bus, at least two other vehicles were severely damaged in the attack. Hamas claimed responsibility.

November 21: Eleven people were killed and 47 injured when a Palestinian suicide bomber exploded on a bus filled with passengers, including schoolchildren, in the Kiryat Menahem neighborhood in Jerusalem. The bus was traveling toward the center of the city during the morning rush hour. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

January 5: Twenty two people were killed and about 120 wounded in a double suicide bombing near the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas all claimed responsibility for the attacks.

These are five examples among HUNDREDS.

If you had half a brain you would know that the difference between the Israelis and the terrorists is that the terrorists kill innocent men, women and children DELIBERATELY. They don’t bother looking for military targets

Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad’s political ambitions are tied up with religious zealotry, which create an entirely different ball-game. He sees himself as the vassal to Mahdi’s coming which will be heralded with cataclysmic events.

We in the West have seen only too well what religious zealots can do.

Ahmadinejad’s belief is so sincere that he has government communiques and petitions dropped into a well in Qum, where the 7 year old Mahdi has been waiting for over 1100 years.

In a speech at the UN general assembly, Ahmadinejad implored the Mahdi to come and save the world - ( a reading of the entire speech is quite something!).

Ahmadinejad claimed that during his twenty minute or so speech:

“a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed, unable to move their eyes.”

As an observer remarked:

“His (Ahmadinejad) main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi's coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it”

Ahmadinejad believes all infidels will be destroyed, whilst the faithful will be safe from death - providing a perfect and pure world for Mahdi’s return.

The Palestinian Authority's mufti issued this Fatwa in June this year

"No Permission to Emigrate from Palestine"

"There has been much talk in Palestine about emigration, especially among the young people, due to the difficult security and economic situation. This is being done in search of a better life abroad. Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.

"We hereby declare that emigration from the blessed lands is not permitted according to religious law. The people living in these areas must remain in their homes and must not leave them to conquerors. Those who abide by this ruling will perform an honorable deed and will support the Aksa Mosque."

This mass emigration is due to terror and killings by Palestinian against Palestinian. Tens of thousands have left or are trying to emigrate.

Kaled Abu Toameh a Middle Eastern journalist, drawing on a survey, conducted by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University in Nablus reported that 92% of respondents feel insecure because of the growing lawlessness in the PA-run areas.

Palestinian sources report, as many as 80,000 people have departed the territories since the Palestinian War began in September 2000.

The PA Foreign Ministry stated 10,000 Palestinians have filed requests, and been approved, to emigrate from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since the beginning of 2007 ... and:

"At least 45,000 emigration applications are being reviewed by different countries." The majority being the US, EU and Canada

Palestinians have also moved to Israel because they would rather live in a democracy than a theocratic mobocracy.
(Larry Derfner, “Jerusalem Undivided” U.S.News & World Report, June 3, 2007).

Businesses are leaving

More than 20 factories have moved out of Gaza in recent months. Mohammed al-Kidwa, governor of Gaza City confirms that 35 factory owners applied to relocate.

And nary a word in our media ... or any other “concerned” party. Why ... ?

The Palestinians themselves have managed to achieve what the Israel never did.

I'm not sure why this thread got sidetracked into discussing Israel. Some people seem to have an "Israel obsession."

To get back to the topic, the dangers of nukes in the hands of countries like Iran and Pakistan are obvious. Not the least of these dangers is the fact that these countries may simply not be able to keep their nukes out of the hands of terrorists.

I want to emphasise that point. I doubt even Ahmadinejad would hand nukes over to terrorists. But I question whether the Iranian state is capable of keeping its nukes safe.

What we do about this is another matter and is certainly a legitimate target for debate. The two extremes are:

--Live with a nuclear Iran / Pakistan and hope for the best.

OR

--Take preemptive action.

Both course of action have their dangers. Hopefully some sort of middle ground will be found.

Israel only enters into the debate because some fear Israel could be a target for Iranian nukes. The exact form of words Ahmadinejad used is open to some debate – he most likely said he would like to wipe Israel from the pages of time. However the FACT is that Ahmadinejad made a statement in a CONTEXT that any objective observer would regard as as threat to wipe out Israel. Only someone whose judgment is warped by an "Israel obsession" could deny that.

The ISSUE in THIS CASE is NOT Israel. It is the possession of nukes by countries like Iran and Pakistan. I suggest we ignore the comments of the "Israel obsessed" and focus on what can be done to obviate the threat.

‘You haven't provided evidence for your claim of Israeli military adventurism.’

I did, but I needn’t... your statements provide enough evidence.

When I suggest Iran could attack Israeli Nuclear facilities you say

‘I would say you are definitely a military adventurist.’

It must be if Israel suggests or urges an attack on Iranian Nuclear facilities, Israel is a ‘military adventurist’?

But to reinforce my view: Lebanon…twice.

What was my question that prompted this response? Please quote the question verbatum.

‘March 2: Ten people were killed and over 50 were injured in a suicide bombing at 7 pm on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in Beit Yisrael in the center of Jerusalem .... The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.

June 17: A shooting attack near the Kibbutz Eyal junction of the Trans-Israel Highway killed a 7-year-old girl and wounded three members of her family, including her 3-year-old sister. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility.

March 27: Twenty-two people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously - in a suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of the Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility.

June 18: Nineteen people were killed and more than 70 were injured, in a suicide bombing on a bus just outside of Jerusalem. … Hamas claimed responsibility.

November 21: Eleven people were killed and 47 injured when a Palestinian suicide bomber exploded on a bus filled with passengers, including schoolchildren, in the Kiryat Menahem neighborhood in Jerusalem. … Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

January 5: Twenty two people were killed and about 120 wounded in a double suicide bombing near the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas all claimed responsibility for the attacks.

These are five examples among HUNDREDS.

If you had half a brain …’.

It would be better to respond to the questions I actually ask rather than become angrily erratic and continue sinking to personal abuse when my opinions don’t fit your propaganda… again … sigh.

I’m sorry Keith. I thought we were providing details of innocent lives lost during the current conflict. Or did you have some other reason for telling me the story of the Palestinian children? It certainly isn’t the first time I’ve heard the story.

I know innocent Palestinians are paying with their lives in this conflict. So are innocent Israelis. The difference is the Israelis are not deliberately targeting innocents. The Islamist ONLY target innocents.

Keith says “Lebabnon, Twice.” Well that’s it. I’ve clearly lost the debate and all you had to do was provide two words.

Seriously, remember the PLO? Remember where they based their military operations against Israel.
Remember the kidnapped soldiers? Kidnapped by Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon. Part of the same group which is currently assassinating Lebanese MP’s one at a time. Hezbollah fire rockets and mortars at Israel over the border from Lebanon on a regular basis, or do you think that the Israelis just make that up?

Israel has EVERY reason to believe that Iran wants to wipe it off the face of the planet. Have you heard the Israelis suggest that they intend to destroy Iran? The only likelihood of Iran being attacked by Israel is to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Israel has a LEGITEMATE concern that Iran intends to use them to attack Israel.

You said “ It would be better to respond to the questions I actually ask ..yada yada .. when my opinions don’t fit your propaganda”

This is exactly my point. These are all your opinions and you are not prepared to defend them. So if you aren’t interested in debating your ideas this becomes a narrow exchange of personal prejudice. If you provide some evidence for why you think any of the things you’ve posted I’d be happy to reply to them.

So let’s just agree that all of your posts are personal opinion and you aren’t prepared to try and support any of them with ANY evidence.

BTW loved your hypothetical on the US ACADEMIC SLAMS IRAN. Hilarious. It was a joke right?

The same parochial counterproductive justifications from Paul.L
Your argument is highly un-proportional to the sitiation on the ground and it seems to me your drifting around in the stratosphere of what simply the powerful define as fair and reasonable.
General Haim Barlev, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was quoted as saying to Ma'ariv in April, 1972: "We were not threatened with genocide, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
So Israel’s actions are based on what? Terrorism?
Ultimately if we are to condemn terrorism and demand that it be fought and contained, those parties who are able to submit positive solutions to the problems that breed terrorism are those who should be assigned the task. I think the solution to terrorism lies in the role of changing the policies and proposing just solutions to the problems of occupation, colonization, forced immigration and imperialism.

I wholeheartedly decry the acts of terrorism by what’s unproductive, and which should be condemned with even more severity, are the attempts exerted by the powerful whom link terrorism with a peoples right to self determination, or those who equate terrorism with mass armed struggle to which people are resorted to against imperialism.

If you want to talk about kidnapped soldiers talk about the thousands detained by Israel without access to trial, if you want to talk about killing innocent civilians talk about the 200,000 (largely avoidable) under-5 infants killed following the occupation (UNHCR and UNICEF data), children to young to even know they are Palestinian and yet are killed for exactly that reason. That in itself is a litmus test of the kind of bigotry that’s predominant in this debate.

For a comprehensive examination regarding Iran and nuclear capability, those interested should download - it’s free - the following from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy - Insight and Analysis on U.S. Middle East Policy

Policy Focus #72
Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran
Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt (Eds.)
Format: PDF, 46 Pages
Published: July 2007

Free Download
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=280


stevenlmeyer,

Among many issues surrounding this complex situation, this document examines those very valid questions you raise regarding Iran providing nuclear weapons to terrorists:

“Command-and-Control Challenges of an Iranian Nuclear Force “by Gregory Giles.

... also, the added component of the religious tenets of the regime:

“Apocalyptic Visions and Iran’s Security Policy” by Mehdi Khalaji

Brief overview (abstract):

“In this Policy Focus -- the first paper in The Washington Institute series "Agenda: Iran" -- editors Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt have assembled a distinguished group of experts to pose questions about the use of deterrence in countering the Iranian nuclear problem.

The paper takes a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach to this problem, with chapters discussing the strategic and ideological mindset of the Iranian regime, the balance of interests between Washington and Tehran, the prospects for cooperation from Europe, the Iranian military's ability to safeguard a potential nuclear arsenal, the regime's calculus concerning domestic pressures, and numerous other key issues related to both the Iranian nuclear dilemma and deterrence in general.

Without exhaustive contingency planning and a concerted push for diplomatic solutions, the editors argue, the United States risks making miscalculations that could have far-reaching consequences.

Contributions by Lewis Dunn, Gregory Giles,Mehdi Khalaji, Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Payne, Karim Sadjadpour, and Bruno Tertrais”

cont...

stevenlmeyer,

Aljazeera (FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005 - 6:49 MECCA TIME, 3:49 GMT ) reported Ahmadinejad’s address at a cconference entitled “The World without Zion” held in Tehran:

"’As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,’ said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.”

Given that this was a translation from Farsi, to Arabic, to idiomatic English, undoubtedly something was lost in translation. The actual speech is here:
http://www.president.ir/fa/

Iranian defenders of Ahmadinejad, state that it is impossible to remove a country from the map.

Apparently, the literal Farsi translation was: “wiping Israel away.” This may, of course, be a Farsi idiom for something quite nice ... but didn’t translate well ...

Keith,

As Paul.L has asked, please provide source and date when making a statement. Without verification these cannot be taken as “fact,” thus, fail any benchmark for debate ... At best these can be considered conspiracy theories, and/or urban myth.

Don’t take the media at face value. Freelancers will tell you that there is no such thing as freedom of the press; before writing a newspaper piece, they first find out the editorial policies and write accordingly. Photographers can be unethical - doctoring their work - as Reuters found out.

I feel you are reading the wrong texts about Israel. Are you drawing on the military and political policy “Großdeutsches Reich”?

Regarding issues you raise, go to my dated posts on forum link:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6282

International law, Jordan and Israel.
Wednesday, 5 September 2007 1.33:26 AM and of 1:35:37 AM

The Security Council’s Resolutions 242 and 424 and meanings thereof; the definition of the Green Line; Israel’s fences: Israel’s June 2004 Supreme Court decision; legal procedures and practice; expected outcomes.
Monday, 10 Setpember 2007 8:23:54 PM and 8:26:31 PM

Palestinian terrorist rocket attacks since Israel's disengagement from Gaza mid-August 2005; their stated aims on their website PAL .
Wednesday, 12 September 2007 2:31:47 PM and 2:34:51 PM

Paul.L. contributes a great deal of information.

Finally, Keith, please ...please .... don’t shoot the messengers.

Paul the question I sked was in relation to rockets from the territories. You cloud things by trying to broaden the issue into all deaths. You see we were talking about rocket attacks and you justifying the response to them. I'm saying the response is far greater than the initial attacks and the statistics show that. You see there have been less than 10 Israeli citizens killed by rockets over the last ten years yet Israel has killed hundreds of innocent kids during their 'measures' to stop the rockets. Like all things in this conflict again their is a huge imbalance. And again the greater harm occurs to innocent Palestinians.

Danielle that story was from the NYTimes ... a noted defender of the Israeli regime.

Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/world/middleeast/26gaza.html?

There are many such balanced stories in their archives.

Paul you know you are gaining a reputation for abusing those who hold opinions that are formed rationally by assessing all points of view and who reach conclusions that don't fit the propaganda you spout.

You keep on that way and very soon you will be seen for what you really are...a simpleton di-khead.

Danielle, Paul

De Pauw wrote about the dangers of Iran getting nukes. His article was only PERIPHERALLY about Israel. Yet somehow Israel seems to have become the centre of this thread.

Keith,

If you feel so strongly about the "evil Israeli empire" why not submit an article to OLO? Why hijack a discussion about Iranian nukes and turn it into a forum about Israel?

Danielle, Paul again.

Why do you take the bait?

One thing I have learned in my 62 years is this. Be wary of debating someone with an obsession. If you let them they will make their obsession the centre of any discussion.

Keith,

Thanks you for the link. Steven Erlanger wrote the article.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting found, between April 11, 2005 and August 21, 2007, grave errors in nine articles by Steven Erlanger. In one article, he stated an Israeli explosive had killed 2 children (aged 2 and 17); it had been a Palestinian explosive. Other articles correcting Erlanger’s errors have been published.

In a lengthy, front-page “New York Times” feature about Palestinian youth (March 12, 2007), Steven Erlanger denied Palestinian Hate Indocrination.

This was damningly refuted, point by point, and well referenced, by Ricki Hollander and Tamar Sternthal, who ended with the statement:

“not so much investigative journalism and analysis as it is a portrayal of a viewpoint endemic to the ‘New York Times.’”

Indeed, Hamas have been promoting, even to Palestinian toddlers, the glories of suicide-killing and hatred of Jews of Israel, with such TV shows as: The Mickey Martyr Club. Due to worldwide protests, they halted it - by having Mickey Martyr martyred. He is now replaced by “Killer Bee.”

Another program.

“Hamas: We Teach Children to Die for Allah”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2hMJnUcxGM

The most critical and daming discussion of Steven Erlanger’s work is in the “Columbia Journalism Review” (Mon 10 Sept 2007) - the watchguard for excellence and inegrity in journalism.

“Steven Erlanger Forgets He’s a Journalist: But Hamas doesn’t” - by Gal Beckerman
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/steven_erlanger_forgets_hes_a.php 

Beckerman finished the analysis with:

“...it will be impossible from now on to read an article with a Gaza dateline without wondering whether Erlanger, too, is scared of the Hamas goons and what facts this is causing him to leave out of his stories.”

As a rule I don’t provide sites like the following, but ...

The “face of terrorism” against which the fence has been erected, resulting in the dramatic drop in carnage by suicide bombers.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

Israel wants a Greater Israel?!
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/jimmy-carters-war/

stevenlmeyer,

I am now taking your advice - although it is very hard - and ignoring Keith’s unhealthy obsession with Israel.

Stevenmeyer

Israel isn’t an empire nor is it evil. It is a country that is behaving in an evil manner by occupying it’s neighbours.

I already have contributed to olo on this topic:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5358

As for hijacking a discussion:

1. The discussion was about opinions on Iranian Nuclear Development. In a discussion about the development of Iranian nuclear weapons it is legitimate to look at the reasons for the Iranians taking that course of action. Israel being nuclear armed is the main reason Iran is seeking parity.

2. The author of the article made the following statement

‘'A nuclear Iran's first effect will be on the region, risking triggering a dangerous race for the bomb all around the area.'’

I responded to the illogic in that opinion. To highlight the inconsistencies in the article I then gave my own opinion and attempted to draw a parallel between the two nuclear and aspiring nuclear nations in the region.

3. From there Paul started his ranting and personal abuse. In my 54 years I’ve found people with an obsession usually leads them to make all sorts of outlandish statements and personal attacks. You are also right about people with obsessions and a read of all posts clearly show it was Paul who attempted to switch from stating opinions into a discussion about his obsession defending poor little Israel.

So when you alluded to me hijacking a discussion I think you should have considered the statements of the pro-Israeli propagandists as well. But it is ok I’ve broad shoulders and I have experienced previously on many occasions such one-eyed attitudes from you types in the pro-Israeli brigade.

Danielle

Please show me the occasion where I’d ‘shot the messenger’…that is, other than where I’d first suffered personal abuse…which btw you didn’t seem to be able to recognise nor criticise.

Danielle

It's a pity the Palestinians can't ignore Israels unhealthy obsession with occupation, military adventurism, land stealing, terrorism and the deceiptful propaganda of it's mouthpieces.

You've just condemned the New York Times for false reporting. They are the most reputable news organisation in the western world. Tell me who makes up the members of 'The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting'.

And Danielle why don't you heed your own advice about shooting messengers. :-)

To get back to the topic at hand.

I see the following dangers in nuclear armed Iran:

--Terrorist organisations are able to get their hands on Iranian nukes. They accomplish this by suborning members of the Iranian security services using the deadliest combination of them all, ideology and money. I regard this as BY FAR the biggest danger of a nuclear Iran.

--The Iranian leadership decides to speed up the coming of the hidden Imam or the day of judgment as recorded in Bukhari 2926. I think this unlikely but we cannot rule it out. The Iranian leadership are religious nuts with little credibility among the mass of Iranians. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY MIGHT DO IF THEY FELT POWER SLIPPING AWAY INSIDE IRAN?

--Iranian nukes would most likely spark a nuclear arms race between Iran and the Sunni powers – especially Saudi Arabia. The Saudis could probably rely on getting help with the technology from Pakistan.

Where a Muslim Middle-East nuclear arms race would end is any body's guess.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem to be waiting to see whether the US will stop Iranian nukes. If they fail to do so, the Saudis especially will conclude that America's ability to protect them is waning and then all bets are off.

Note also just how weird is Ahmadinejad:

"In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

"When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

(Spare me invidious comparisons with Bush's religiosity. Compared to Ahmadinejad Bush & Co are Unitarians.)

Anyone got any REALISTIC suggestions for dealing with the dangers posed by IRAN'S nukes?

Keith,

Mate you have handed out your fair share of personal abuse.

The Palestinian gov’t has still not met the demands of the Quartet. ” the US, UN, Russia and the EU - has demanded that the PA recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previously signed peace agreements.”

You say in your article that “In the Middle East land is the crucial issue … the largest single cause of Arab discontent.” But the real sticking point in all the peace negotiations is the Palestinian ‘right of return’. Israelis rightly consider this demand as an attempt to destroy the Jewish nation by stealth. A spokesman of the organization in the Gaza Strip, Fauzi Barhum, said that "Hamas has decided to show a political horizon, but our position is clear. All the land of Palestine [from the sea to the river] belongs to the Palestinians and Israel is the enemy. However, our political horizon offers a hudna for 15-20 years, in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, the return of the refugees and the release of the prisoners." What happens after 15-20 years? More terrorism.

“Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused..”

So what are the Iranians legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons? Do they have a real fear of being attacked by Israel or do they want to attack or intimidate Israel themselves?I don’t recall Israel ever attacking Iran. So what does a non-nuclear Iran have to fear from Israel?

The argument that Iran should have nukes because Israel has them is logically flawed. By this logic that means we should allow Mugabe to have nukes because the west has them? Why not the Burmese Junta as well?

Paul,

Your Israel obsession seems to be as profound as Keith's.

Newsflash.

Iran's nukes are only peripherally about Israel.

I strongly doubt that Iran developed nukes because of Israel.

Fact is Iran lives in a dangerous part of the world. It's fighting a low level civil war on its border with Pakistan. The rebels are supported by nuclear armed Pakistan, Iran's traditional rival for influence in the region.

Iran used to support the anti-Talaban forces in Afghanistan. Recall that the Taleban was supported by Pakistan.

On its Western border Iran used to face Iraq whose mad dictator was definitely trying to get nukes. If you had Saddam as a neighbour you'd also want nukes.

In some of its provinces – notably those with most of the oil and gas reserves – Iran is fighting another conflict with Sunni rebels supported by Saudi Arabia. Iran returns the complement by funding Shia dissidents in the Saudi oil producing areas.
plays out.

For all its oil wealth Iran's per capita GDP is only about one third that of Israel on a PPP basis. On an exchange rate basis its about 12% of Israel's.

The BIG problem in the M-E and North Africa is under-development. They're basically fly-over countries. Businessmen from Europe fly over the Arab countries in order to invest in Asia. Countries like Egypt, Algeria and Morocco are situated right next door to the the EU, one of the richest markets in the world. They have abundant supplies of labour. Yet on the whole they've been less successful in attracting EU investment than Vietnam.

In fact the Arab countries on a per capita basis have been less successful in attracting investment than Israel. THAT is their real problem. Not Israel.

The various countries in the region are far more afraid of each other than Israel.

The world does not revolve around Israel.

Even the Middle-East does not revolve around Israel.

Get a life guys. Throw away your tunnel-vision spectacles and try and see the total picture.

StevenMeyer,

I agree with almost everything you said. Israels only importance to this issue stem from the claims by soft lefties that Iran should be nuclear armed because Israel is.

Its crazy logic for so-called progressives.

Why do you two bother? If others opinions are so opposite to yours that you cannot even consider there is a modicum of truth in their view, and it causes you both so much angst that you have resort to personal attacks on the holders of those opposite opinions.

Just take a look at your rantings in this opinion forum and you'll see the hycrotical nature of your views and then check out with Danielle her advice about attacking the messengers.

The behaviour of both of you really is laughable. It's affording my friends and I a great deal of entertainment.

Keith,

I notice you do not address the topic at hand.

What, if any, are the dangers of Iranian nukes?

What, if anything, should (can?) we do about it?

Are you CAPABLE of addressing the topic without a diatribe about Israel?

There are few dangers to many of us from Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The one advantage the Iranians see in Iran having nukes is that is will cause great fear among the Israeli's and that will make them reassess their occupation, suppression and land stealing in Palestine.

Perhaps if the example of decenct diplomacy in the case of North Korea was followed and all countries in the region were prepared to disarm their nuclear capacity then sense might reign in the Iranian political and civil thought.

Now are you capable of answering that without personal abuse of moaning about poor little Israel?

Steven,

I think you are entirely correct about investment. Iran’s inflation rate is 15.8%. Iranians are calling for investment (whilst also asking that the present regime be expelled from the UN). They see that large investment would go a long way to undermining the current regime, which is not popular with many - perhaps the majority of Iranians.

Whilst Iran holds 11% of global oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia; in fact, is second in the world, it is unable to build its own refineries, losing much oil income. Also its oil infrastructure is decaying rapidly, mismanaged by a Soviet style state bureaucracy.

The current Iranian leadership is not just interested in maintaining power, but also seeing their mission as spreading the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East (already terrorist attacks have occured in Europe), and if successful, worldwide. Iran funds Islamic fundamentalist organisations. Whilst we cannot comprehend the religious zealotry and beliefs of Ahjmadinejad, Iranians certainly do, and are alarmed. We should at least listen to those who understand such apocalytic visions.

But how easy and quickly is Iran able to produce nuclear weapons? U235, whilst easy to make into a bomb, is a problem because enrichment is very difficult, requiring a large, sophisticated physical plant. On the other hand, plutonium is easier to produce from reactors, but plutonium bombs are much harder to build.

Intelligence estimates vary about how long Iran would take to produce a nuclear warhead. Some state that with co-operation with North Korea, Iran could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device within 12 months; others - the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has greatly set back the program; still others - Iran's effort to produce highly enriched uranium is still years from mastering the required technology.

cont ...

Given Iran’s size and its comparatively well-equipped armed forces, it does not face serious military threat. Nevertheless, with nuclear and missile programmes and the fact that Iran also funds fundamentalist terrorist organisations in the region, Arab States would be very nervous at the idea of possible nuclear devices in such hands. This may put Iran in a position to influence movement of oil supplies.

Russia is closely involved with Iran. Russia could well be manipulating Iran, which is dancing to Russian turnes.

Possibly Russia wants to be principal source of Europe’s energy supplies - using vast energy resources as a political tool - thus have a dominant role in international affairs.

With the largest source of gas reserves in the world, including the Barents Sea, the Yamal peninsula and eastern Siberia, Russia is also negotiating with Iran to drill for Iran’s natural gas. Given Iran's massive oil reserves, Russia would not want to see Iran nuked.

“Moscow has delayed the start-up of Iran's first nuclear power station to 2008 because Tehran has fallen behind with payments for the Bushehr plant (July 2007)”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11946(Reuters)

On October 1, 2007, The Khorramshar News Agency, published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr had returned to Russia.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4636

“Analysts have speculated that Moscow could be tweaking its policy towards Tehran or that the Kremlin is using Bushehr as a bargaining chip in a wider diplomatic game”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11946(Reuters)

I suspect that Iran is an unwitting puppet of Russia. Large investment in Iran could well be the solution to any nuclear powers in Iranian hands.

Keith,

So despite the risks Iranian nukes may be a good thing because they will strike fear into the hearts of the Israelis?

Your last post does at least clear up one question. You are genuinely INCAPABLE of addressing the issue of Iranian nukes without bringing Israel into it. You are so obsessed by Israel that you cannot see the wider picture.

Sad.

Cont...

You on the other hand you raised and dismissed the 'leftie' solution of addressing Muslim grievances, and of course the greatest of those is …which? That’s right Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians.

I raised the possibility of an Israeli attack as a solution, and I as a liberal but not a leftie agreed addressing Muslim grievances would go a long way to solving the problem.

You then claimed the impossibility of Israeli nukes ending in the hands of nutters.

I replied to that nonsense in a jesting fashion.

(In our discussion so far now who first raised that apparently taboo subject Israel and Palestine? Oops you did… are you obsessed?)

And then in your next post you raised an equally absurd scenario regarding Israeli nukes.

I ignored that nonsense.

Then you asked how the discussion got sidetracked onto Israel and you accused me of having an obsession and then you carried on about Israel being a target for Iranian nukes.

I ignored the provocation and you’re alarmist claims.

You then ascribed to me an attitude about Israel I don’t hold, asked why I didn’t write an OLO article, and claimed I’d hi-jacked a discussion and was obsessive.

I responded to those accusations and led you by the nose through the development of the postings.

You didn’t respond to that but raved on about some religious nuttery.

I ignored that.

You then carried on in another anti-Arab post and raised Israel again.

I ignored that and told you how hypocritical you look.

You then accused me of not addressing the topic and obsessing about Israel.

I responded to that silliness.

Then you accused me of not being able to leave Israel out of this discussion.

And you reckon I’m obsessed.’?

As the other bloke said:

‘Er no’ …head shaking and laughing.

That really was worth a good laugh.

btw… What exactly are the risks to the Western Liberal Democracies of Iran having nuclear arms? … Smirking … and try responding without referring any country that isn’t a western liberal democracy.

Keith

In answer to you rather smug question to steven. How about a nuclear 9/11? Is that serious enough for you?

That’s rich. Stevenmeyer

The author raised Israel in the article … twice. Is he obsessed?

In my first post I responded to those references and pointed out the absurdity of fearing Iran’s nukes but not Israel’s.

Does that make me obsessed?

In Paul’s first post he raised Israel … twice.
In his second post and first in response to my enquiry about who is the greater threat to peace, he ranted about Egyptians, Arab armies, Syrians, North Koreans, and launched personal attacks by calling me an apologist, a soft leftie, suggested I was helping the Iranians obtain Nuclear Weapons and then yelling that I was ‘MAD’.
His posts from then on degenerated into raves about all sorts of issues and continual personnal abuse.

My posts merely responded by answering his questions and pointing to alternative thinking in regard to biased claims made in his posts.

However, perhaps unfortunately, I did lose patience at times and I did suggest his logic might be questionable and lacked balance and that he didn’t apply typical western democratic reasoning when assessing mid eastern problems. I did say one of his views was racist and that he lied about Camp David. I did accuse him of being a one-eye propagandist. I did ask him to stop whining and that he grizzled. I did say he was behaving the blustering clown etc etc …

And now he's answered my question to you with a reference to a Western Democracy.

See my point, he's only interested in Israeli scaremongering and misses the obvious as usual.

Which is: If an Iranian nuclear bomb was detonated in the US, Iran would simply be obliterated in .... minutes.

Keith,

Now you are really losing it. … What exactly are the risks to the Western Liberal Democracies of Iran having nuclear arms? … Smirking … and try responding without referring any country that isn’t a western liberal democracy.

Keith. Try thinking and rubbing your head at the same time. I bet you can't do both.

So please try and explain what are the risks to western democracies without mentioning any country which isn’t a western democracy?

Anyway, I didn’t mention Israel at all. I pointed out the very real possibility of a nuclear 9/11 in America.

Your soft logic requires many other assumptions you haven’t made clear. There are a number of scenarios under which such an attack might occur

1. That Iran doesn’t care or is not concerned about American retaliation if they can make a first strike on America. See Ahmedinejhads many speeches on the coming apocalypse and the return of the Mehdi

2. Iran can’t prevent nuclear material falling into the hands of the terrorists against their wishes.

3. Iran believes they can disguise the source of the nuclear material so that it is not clear where it came from.

4. Iran believes that the US needs Middle Eastern oils so much they can’t afford to nuke anyone in the area.

BTW I am ROFLAO at the thought of you and your friends gathered around your computer giggling at the right wing lunatics, its such a wonderfully geeky idea. You really are a very sensitive little petal aren’t you? Robust debate a little much for you?

Paul.L

I don't for a minute believe that Keith and his friends were around the computer giggling.
Keith's just trying to make you rise (as Steven observed) to the bait.

I am sure, despite our differences, Keith and his friends don't act like a group of bullying, pubescent, spiteful schoolgirls. He's just having you on ...

Keith wrote:

"If an Iranian nuclear bomb was detonated in the US, Iran would simply be obliterated in .... minutes."

True. The same is true if an Iranian nuke were to explode in any nuclear armed nation including Israel. That MAY be enough to deter the Mad Mullahs who rule Iran.

However that does not address two problems with Iranian nukes.

-Can the Iranian state keep its nukes out of the hands of terrorists? I question its ability to do so. I doubt terrorists would be deterred by a threat to annihilate Iran especially since the country that suffered the attack MAY NOT KNOW THE ORIGIN OF THE NUKE.

-Would a nuclear Iran ignite a nuclear arms race in the M-E and what would be the consequences of such an arms race?

This last is quite a profound problem. Imagine Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan all with nukes, all eying each other with mutual suspicion.

Remember this Keith:

When faced with the prospect of nuclear attack, a preemptive strike is not an option. It's the ONLY option. All military strategists know and understand that. In the M-E it would result in great instability. How long before the M-E goes up in a fireball?

On a more positive note, my feeling is that Iran has passed a demographic tipping point. Total fertility rate (average lifetime number of babies per woman) is now well below replacement. Iran is a rapidly aging society. Older societies generally do not go to war. Provided Iran can be contained for a decade or so it will probably settle down.

Also, low birthrates are associated with declining religiosity tho' whether this is a cause or effect is a matter of debate. Either way it augurs well for Iran coming out of its current religious dictatorship.

I hope it does. I think the Iranians are better than their mad leaders.

Interesting you blokes assume me and my mates all sit around one computer. Haven't you heard of e-mail, chatrooms or sms?

Paul

But I don't mind your personal abuse it only re-inforces the fact your arguments are lacking substance. I love robust debate but abhor your type of denigration of my personalty in dismissing my opinions.

Don't you think your logic in relation to point 1 a little silly?

In your senario Mehdi will have no where to return.

Danielle

Keep protecting that messenger ... won't you.

Stevenmeyer. Yep your points are valid... the old MAD proposition. Mutually assured destruction. Just what's lacking at present and a senario Israel doesn't want.

Just as a point of interest and not for the first time let's look at Iran's rivals in the region. Have you any idea of their birthrates? And will the same senario apply to the conflict between Israel and say ... ahhhh Palestine.
Sorry couldn't help but think the population of Palestine (Natural increase) is growing at a greater rate than Israels.

I'd always thought lower birthrates were associated with greater prosperity? It's not an area I've spent a lot of time looking at.

I agree the Iranians ... from many reports... and personal contact... do appear to be a lot better than the Mullahs.
And on a personal note thanks for your decency and respect... it is refereshing.

Steven,

Certainly, the Iranian regime seems a loose cannon and no-one can be sure of what it is capable.

However, Russia as an active partner of CTR, it is unlikely to assist, in any serious capacity, Iran becoming a nuclear power in the Middle East.

Whilst, Ahmadinejad continues to trumpet an intent to dominate the region, Arab states would never accept an Iranian nuclear power unless they were convinced Iran’s nuclear technology was for domestic use only.

As to a nuclear arms race, Arab nuclear know-how would be restricted to international conditions and terms of suppliers. Jordan’s intention to build a nuclear reactor for civilian purposes has long been on the agenda. It is in this context that leaks by Arab governments about gaining nuclear technology need to be assessed.

You question:

Can the Iranian state keep its nukes out of the hands of terrorists? I question its ability to do so. I doubt terrorists would be deterred by a threat to annihilate Iran especially since the country that suffered the attack MAY NOT KNOW THE ORIGIN OF THE NUKE.

Amitai Etzioni and Ted Galen Carpenter, however, believe that if nuclear material/weapons are supplied to terrorists, it is likely to be through the Russian Mafia, rather than by any identifiable state, which would attract (as you state) an immediate and devastating response.

Etzioni observed:

“ In Russia, the central government has been unable to prevent local commanders, criminals, or others who seek a quick profit—from wheeling and dealing in nuclear materials.”

As yet, terrorists have not resorted to nuclear weapons, although apparently available for sometime.

Reports suggest that it is unlikely that Ahmadinejad will be re-elected president if he runs in 2009; he is becoming increasingly unpopular with the ruling elite.

In an understatement, William Samii, an Iran expert with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said of Ahmadinejad:

"He's sort of a bull in a china shop and neophyte in foreign affairs," ... "He does not have great input on [Iranian] foreign policy. But he hasn't been president six months and he's managed to alienate most of the international community."