I'm intrigued by Anthony's reporting of the London source that Australian SAS forces are operating inside Iran. If true it is deeply disturbing. I don't believe Bush will be 'Cheney-ed' into a strike against Iran, but there is little doubt that with all their land and naval forces encroaching, they would wish for an Iranian 'Tonkin incident' to give them the pretext for a 'surgical strike'. I can't argue with the author's view that Rudd/McClelland will acquiese to the US come what may. Hopefully Julia Gillard who we know is close to Mark Latham..'Bush is the most incompetent, most dangerous president this century' can hold sway but it is a very faint hope.

To read about how an attack on Iran will be a catastrophe for the US 5th Fleet and will lead to all out war between the US and Iran (probably including tactical nuclear weapons) go to:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/11/08/01932.html

This should not be an article about Rudd. The problem is what Australia's government will do if Washington calls another war.

But once we are clear about where the anxiety lies, this important article is a lot more alarming, and a lot less alarmist, than many would have us believe.

Ask why Howard and Rudd both so assiduously maintain an ambiguous position on whether we might go to war in Iran. The Americans have advised them both to keep that option alive.

While you are at it, ask why our defense forces have been buying up all those Abrams battle tanks. Battle tanks are mostly useful in a main engagement on open ground. They are particularly necessary when fighting against an enemy who also possesses battle tanks.

Tanks are not what peacekeepers need in our region. Nor are they what Australia's occupation forces need in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely the Abrams buy-up is aimed at Iran.

The implication to me of the article in The Canadian (link in post 2 above) is that if the US wanted to attack Iran without creating a casus belli from the destruction of its Gulf fleet is that it would need to withdraw the fleet in its entirety before striking Iran. That is, it would need to flag its intentions (by withdrawal) and to remove the air cover for ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then attack Iran's nuclear installations only through long-range aircraft (maybe plus submarines). If it did start to withdraw its fleet, that might prompt a pre-emptive attack from Iran, on a "we've-nothing-to-lose" basis. A more complex scenario than most would realise.

Antony, does your theorem indicate that Howard has already made a decision if he stays on - to follow Bush and Cheney in a madcap attack on Iran sometime next year before Bush goes out?

Further, what does Rudd think about an attack on Iran?

Having qualified as an historian in my old age, I have decided to regard the Middle East problem as simply an extension of British colonialism under the neo name of Anglophilic imperialism - the only thing different the old title was more honest.

The neo one indeed, fits like a glove with an answer to a question from a UK reporter to Mubarak of Egypt a couple of years ago?

The question from the reporter was what was the real problem in the Middle East?

The answer from Mubarak was the one us Westerners know is all too true, but we are too gutless to admit. WESTERN INTRUSION and INJUSTICE.

Further, as some sort of protective plan for holding the fort, we have allowed little Israel to have the most potent in nuclear weaponry, seemingly to have her take the blame for the first strike, as shown with the latest conventional weaponry attack on Syria.

No wonder just ordinary Arabs fear the future so much they are ready to give their lives.

Could wonder whether we will ever learn some commonsense - better still a sense of fair play?

Cheers - BB - WA

Loewenstein is beginning the softening up process. The article isn't about preparing us to support the US in a strike on Iran.

It's about softening us up to accept an invasive and so-called pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran is a legimate way to conduct international affairs.

How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by a few Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership would be an appropriate way to solve the occupation and repression of millions of people in Palestine?

Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother? Didn't they learn anything from their debacle in Lebanon. That solved zilch and has simply lead to further destabilisation in the region. Exactly the same result as their intrusion into Palestinian politics in Gaza.

Where's their promised peace treaty with the Palestinians who were forced to reject Hamas? All that talk of peace is simply lying propaganda designed to protect Israel's desire to steal their neighbours lands and dominate their neighbours people.