Graham Cooke,

Agreed. The Iranians could argue that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel, the country is definitely aggressive. One fact is certain, whatever 'measures' Israel takes against Iran will be rubber-stamped by the Americans and we can be certain that Netanyahu will be on a very long leash. However, the Americans might find Iran a tougher nut to crack than Saddam's Iraq.

I've always assumed that Iran was the main target in the ME for both the US and Israel since the end of the Shah's rule, Saddam Hussein was just another pawn in the game.

What we know about Iran's plans and nuclear capability is pure speculation; except perhaps, it is perfectly okay to blatantly lie to, or mislead infidels?
However, there are historical lessons we need to remain cognisant of.
Had the world stood up to Hitler in 1938, we may well have prevented WW11 and or the massacre of six million Jews; and the deaths of millions more non-combatant innocent civilians.
The most important of those historical lessons is, you can never ever appease tyrants, who simply recognise it as weakness or carte blanche to proceed as they like?
We for our part need to read the writ large writing on the wall, and act with urgent alacrity, to deliver complete energy independence for ourselves.
If that means govt investment in the exploration and exploitation of the potentially massive reserves, we may well have own in our north-east economic zone, then that is what we must do! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Rhrosty.

Rhostry appears to drawing a parallel between Iran and Nazi Germany. However it is Israel that is the aggressor in this case, not Iran. Iran has never invaded or even threatened to invade its neighbours. Israel has. Iran is not threatening to bomb Israel. Israel is threatening to bomb Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal. Israel does. It seems clear to me where the threat lies. And also clear who we need to be careful about appeasing.

I actually think that the author is wrong.

I believe the next 12 weeks, prior to the US election, are going to be the most dangerous times the ME will face.

Netanyahu knows that Obama is weak, and his continued attempts to blame Iran for terrorist attacks (think the killing of five Israelis in Bulgaria in July that have yet to be explained) and further attempts to depict Iran as the satan that needs destroying and you have a sphere of geopolitics that is on the knife edge.

It is unlikely that Netanyahu will get a better opportunity to attack Iran than in the next few weeks. Romney's new running mate will probably swing the vote back to Obama, a second term President in the US is much less likely to support or commit troops to support Israel should it pre-empt any agreed strategy between Israel and the US, vis Netanyahu knows with his waning popularity he only has a small window in which to act.

All I can suggest is watch this space, never mind the possibility whereby Russia and China become involved in an all-out shoot em up in the ME rather than on their home soils involving the US.

Netanyahu is a sociopath and should be treated as one. His fantasy and reality may just be what is needed to pull the trigger on the "Iran factor"

Just my two cents worth

Thanks for your comments.
Geoff, I am aware of the contary view that Israel could strike before the US Presidential election for the reasons you outline. But I still feel there are good reasons why this will not happen.
First a weakened Netanyahu can't count on the solid support of his Cabinet any more. At the weekend the Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, went against him by insisting that attempts be made to re-start stalled negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. I am not suggesting the two are far apart on the Iran issue, but it does seem the PM's words are no longer law.
Secondly, a public opinion poll just released has 46 per cent of Israelis opposing a strike on Iran without Washington's support; 33 per cent in favour and 22 per cent undecided. This is a significant turnaround from previous polls on the issue.
Finally, the newly appointed Security Minister, Avraham Dichter, is on the record as saying Israel should not go it alone with a strike on Iran.
So Netanyahu now has to consider significant domestic opposition to a lone strike, possibly within his own Cabinet, and in the country at large.

In public utterances, Khamenei is quite clear:

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“They (Western countries) falsely accuse the Islamic republic’s establishment of producing nuclear weapons. We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons and prohibit the use and production of nuclear weapons. This is because of our ideology, not because of politics or fear of arrogant powers or an onslaught of international propaganda. We stand firm for our ideology.”

.... but of course broadcasting THAT on our media would be tantamount to treason, wouldn't it?

.... and it would get in the way of some really good Israeli propaganda.

Also, use of the old "push Israel into the sea" canard (a deliberate mis - translation... I watched the speech live on Iranian TV) seems a bit gullible to me.

Ah but, facts be damned! This is an opinion website after all.

Over to you Graham.....