Ms Bishop is right to question why Australia has sent representatives to the non-aligned conference, but not for the reasons she advances. To describe Australia as "non-aligned" is farcical. Australia's role as America's lap dog is so well documented it hardly bears repetition.

It is also alarming that for someone who hopes to be Australia's next deputy PM and Foreign Minister Ms Bishop is alarmingly ill-informed about the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. Her bald assertion that Iran is "unquestionably" pursuing a nuclear arms capability flies in the face of two unanimous NIE reports that that is not the case.

Ms Bishop also seems lamentably unaware that several public opinion polls conducted by reputable US organisations of public opinion in multiple Arab countries overwhelmingly regard Israel and the US as the greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.

For her to repeat the tired and long discredited suggestion that Iran wants Israel wiped off the map just reinforces how much her views are guided by prejudice and ignorance rather than the facts.

There is much to criticise in the government's foreign policy, but sadly Ms Bishop chooses all the wrong targets for all the wrong reasons.

God, first we have another Israeli lament from Uncle Singer and it is immediately followed by another pro-American propaganda burst from Aunty Julie! Struth, it's enough to turn a man to drink or wicked women.

Why does Aunty Julie choose OLO to expose her ignorance about world politics and her craven sycophancy to America, the world's biggest warmonger?

Australia should be showing to the world that it is an independent, peace-loving country not a [deleted, objectionable language] in the White House. It should be attending all world forums and preaching the advantages and importance of peace not glorifying the madness of war.

Sorry Aunty Julie, but you are seriously misguided and an enemy of peace!

Mr O'Neill and Mr David wheel out their usual anti-Americanism; I can never understand that; the US is an open, democratic society; it's foreign policy is problematic but in focusing on that in the usual, self-indulgent, hypocritical way US protestors do, they ignore the other side of the equation; or rather, in Mr O'Neill's case, dismiss it by saying Iran is not pursuing a nuclear capacity.

To believe Iran is not pursuing a nuclear capacity is beyond belief.

More generally with such tasteful comments as "[Deleted...see previous comment]" at least Mr David reveals himself as having nothing to do with a meaningful contribution to this debate. And in the context of being supine to a foreign interest both Mr O'Neill and Mr David have ignored a far more detrimental subservience to a foreign power which Ms Bishop has noted when she says this:

"In other words, would these senior officials have been sent to Iran if Australia were not engaged in a campaign seeking support for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council?"

Of the 2, the UN and the US, I know which I and most Australians would rather be in accord with; that is the US, the democratic alternative.

Cohenite, you claim that the U.S. is democratic. Are you blind or just silly?

Look at the Presidential election. Americans get to choose between two warmongering lackeys of the ruling classes and their corporate backers.

How is that democratic? Which ever stooge is elected, the American citizens get taken to the dry cleaners and the world lurches ever closer to nuclear war.

Put your brain into gear, my friend! Time is running out.

I believe one should stick to their principles! However, there is a need to actually own some to be able to stick to them?
Julie, Is climate change real?
Or was it just real while you were return bill Turnbull's 2IC?
A politician with principles Julie?
Now that's something I'd like to see!
Why are we sending these two envoys?
Perhaps they have long established connections or "special insights" into the problem or the area or cultural norms or mores?
Perhaps they are our most persuasive public servants?
I mean, are we indeed really teetering on the brink of a hot war, between nuclear armed combatants?
A war that will impact negatively on more than just the combatants; and or, their near neighbours?
And need all the persausive ability that can be bought to bear to avoid conflict; or, buy additional time?
Time to make the necessary adjustments to our economy and forward defence posture or intell gathering abilities?
There is a time and place to play the political game Julie, and this is very clearly not one of them!
One can't persuade others to adopt a different course of action, by not talking to them Julie! And sanctions can only ever work Julie, if we can actually enforce them!
Rhrosty.

Well-informed is an optional extra. On message is a must.

If Australia manages to get a temporary seat at the UN Security Council this will be a good thing for Australia as it enhances our image and influence in the UN and in international affairs generally.

Australia is not a member of the NAM and the Iranians and others may see our participation as opportunistic.

Australia should continue to support nuclear non-proliferation and global peace. The UNSC permanent members are all nuclear armed states. The UNSC members and other nuclear armed states need to dismantle their nuclear stockpiles and commit to making the planet a safer place. Humanity does not need nuclear weapons.

First hand knowledge is better than reading a version of it in the AUSTRALIAN.

Yeah, let's put more sanctions on the Iranians, Julie. After all, it worked so well with the Iraqis, didn't it?

Yeah, starving women and children is the way to go, the way to achieve peace, the way to bring an end to all war, isn't it, Julie? I mean the Israelis have tried starvation along with genocide, stealing land and taxes, using phosphorous munitions, etc, and we can see just how much peace has been achieved, haven't we?

Yeah, Australia should stick to its principles assuming it had any real principles!

Until reading this article, I didn’t know about Australia’s attendance at the NAM summit. So on that basis, I thank Julie Bishop for informing me of ONE action amongst the shameful litany of obsequious behaviours comprising Australia’s foreign policy that I can finally be proud of.

After the inhumane 13-year sanctions ordeal that Iraq was put through – which, among other horrors and injustices, impoverished the country, crippled its previously advanced health system causing the deaths of 500,000 children under five, and brought literacy levels from 95% in 1987 to 40% in 2003 – Ms Bishop now has the audacity to be enraged by Australia’s ‘failure’ to maintain a similar level of slow demo-torture on the population of Iran.

Whether or not Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program is not the real point – even though so many try to make it so. The fact is that the country is surrounded by hostile nuclear-powered pro-Western states. Starvation sanctions and belligerent diplomacy will bring the country to its knees, as it did to Iraq, but will not address the diplomatic realities that are driving Iran’s decisions on weapons defence – nuclear or otherwise

I fear this Coalition will take us to war based on the lies of terrorism and the demonisation of Russia and China because they will no be subdued by the Banking Military Industrial Complex.

What in the name of fortune are we putting sanctions on Iran for? The only ones they are affecting are the poor and the needy in the Iranian population. It would be more logical to put sanctions on the Israelis, Americans and their nuclear armed allies until they destroy their massive stockpiles of nukes.

Any chance of whoever writes JB's stuff being introduced to the notion of a paragraph? Both her recent 'articles' read like a power point presentation without the visuals.

What Killarney said.

She writes her own stuff Candide, and I'm getting a bit tired of the abuse of Julie every time we put something up by her on the site. I'd be happy if we got more high level contributions from politicians on both sides. I don't think they engage enough. But looking at the standard of debate on this thread, perhaps there is a reason they avoid internet only publications.

"While the regime claims it is not pursuing nuclear weapons technology, it refuses to allow unfettered access to inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

In response to this myopic view of middle eastern events, I would like to remind readers and responders that Julie and obviously GrahamY appear unaware that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Israel, who, in my opinion, appears to be the main aggressor in this insane tit-for-tat ratchet up of brinkmanship is not! Lets see if they are willing to let the inspectors in? Not in my lifetime me thinks.

Australia has no business putting sanctions on Iran, we need to stop and take a long hard look at what can be done to address the myriad of issues affecting the region. US hegemony and its unsurpassed support for Israel, regardless of their inhumane and continued oppression of the Palestinian people, needs to be addressed. The US is one of the primary reasons the entire Middle East is in Chaos, let’s not forget Iraq, an invasion, completely in conflict with UN resolutions and demonstrated as a violation of the UN charter and all it stands for, perhaps Howard can explain our involvement. Let’s not forget Afghanistan, another five brave Australians lost today, and to what end, US hegemony if I read it right.

This tragedy is only going to continue if we keep doing the same old and tired tried and true capitalistic ventures, vis continue down a failed path and for what true outcome.

Julie and her party are just parasites that will continue to roll out the tried and tested mantra, despite the human misery in our midst.

Let’s not even mention Syria, just another stepping stone to Middle Eastern conquest.

Truly shameful by both side of politics in this so called 'luck country'.

Unfortunately Geoff of Perth,both the major parties fall over themselves grovelling when the USA or Britian beckons.The BRIC nations are now working towards their own currency and banking system because of the West's attempt to steal via derivative scams and "Quantitative easing" which is another word for counterfeiting.QE3 is on it's way.

At the recent NAM conference in Tehran 30 countries which represented nearly half the world's pop were resolved not to let an attack happen on Syria.The West is the clear aggressor and our leaders are no better than Hitler or Starlin if they endorse these imperialist wars.

China has the right to secure energy and resources from Africa or where ever it likes.Perhaps they won't rape these countries like the West has done for centuries.Our future is in Asia.We have 800,000 Chinese who live here and many have married Europeans.

Both Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating recently warned about the policy of trying to contain China by cutting off energy and resources.This is the same policy which forced Japan into WW2.

Graham

‘I'm getting a bit tired of the abuse of Julie every time we put something up by her on the site’

I don’t think you are being fair. What you perceive as abuse, others would see as expressions of exasperation, indeed alarm, at her ignorance of the push-pull factors of Western foreign policy, especially in its use of sanctions and military interventions.

I don’t bother to engage much with her specific arguments, because I don’t respect them enough. However, many others like David G, Arjay, James O’Neill, Geoff of Perth and Rhrosty are prepared to do so, and in an informed manner.

Compared to the grotesque levels of misogynist abuse thrown at the much better informed feminist-oriented writers on the OLO gender threads, I believe the critics of Ms Bishop here are paragons of restraint

"I don’t bother to engage much with her specific arguments, because I don’t respect them enough. However, many others like David G, Arjay, James O’Neill, Geoff of Perth and Rhrosty are prepared to do so, and in an informed manner."

Excellent joke, very tongue in cheek, what with the variations of "lickspittle" that can be directed to the US and anyone who remotely supports the US that have been used by the memebers of the above list of considered commentators.

Anyway, none of them know what they are talking about, at least in respect of Iran and nuclear:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/tehran-ramping-up-nuclear-efforts-un-says/story-fnb64oi6-1226461947859

I agree with the general view that nuclear weapons are a blight but if push comes to shove, then in a choice between an Iran which wants to create planet Islam, and the US I know which nation I want to have the things and which nation I do not want to have them, under any circumstances.

Well yes, cohenite,

It's not as if the US is a warmonger or anything.

What I want to know, and which so far as remained unreported, is whether the Australian delegates to NAM carried out their promise to walk out if there was any anti-Israeli rhetoric - which there was.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/61294

and

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283276

If not, why not?

If they can waste money on salary and expenses on a politician clearly not worth feeding, why on earth not diplomats in Iran, an international flashpoint.
What does Bishop think will really be going on there?

Hi Killarney. I noted your comment "Compared to the grotesque levels of misogynist abuse thrown at the much better informed feminist-oriented writers on the OLO gender threads, I believe the critics of Ms Bishop here are paragons of restraint"

Care to give me some examples? I'd also be interested to know why you didn't complain about them before so I could at least make a decision as to whether they should be moderated or not. If they are truly "grotesque" and "abuse" then there is no doubt they ought to be moderated.

Graham
Julie Bishop has form for not writing her own stuff. And she has staff who are expected to do that sort of leg work for her - as do other politicians. I'm not saying she doesn't agree with what is published in her name, but neither of us knows exactly who writes it. Most of what is published by politicians should probably be described as 'from the office of....'.

Candide, I'm as sure as I can be that Julie writes this column.

There was one incident in 2008 when something that went under her name was written by her chief of staff who apparently plagiarised. I note that a number of posters want to endlessly recycle that as some sort of rebuttal of anything that Julie says.

So you'd like to see anything under her name billed as "from the office of"? So any politician, or anyone else for that matter should probably be similarly billed. As Kevin Rudd's celebrated essay "Howard’s Brutopia: The battle of ideas in Australian politics" was actually written by his office, I assume you're recommending the same demeaning treatment of anything he writes. And I guess if two do it, they all do it, so why not all politicians, just to be on the safe side?

So who writes your posts and how should we bill you?

‘I'd also be interested to know why you didn't complain about them before so I could at least make a decision as to whether they should be moderated or not.’

I’ve sent comment alerts to the OLO moderators, but these have all been ignored so I gave up. And anyway, citing one-off abuse examples taken out of context is an inadequate way to try and prove long-term bullying patterns.

I tell you what, Graham. Why don’t YOU prove to ME that misogynistic abuse towards women on the gender threads does NOT go on, so that I can at least make a decision about whether to continue as a commenter or not.

I suggest that the burden of proof rests with OLO to prove that there is NO causal relationship between the extremely low to non-existent female participation rate on the gender threads and the disgraceful way that women are treated there, especially feminist oriented women.

Killarney, there is no evidence of you ever complaining. Can you provide some? I think the onus is on you, after making claims, to substantiate them. In this case it is a fairly serious claim against moderation and if you can't substantiate it I will consider what penalty might apply.

Graham

Graham and Killarney: why don't you two gentlemen carry on your dialogue off this comment stream. It is frankly a diversion from the original article. The point of my original comment and picked up by some others is that Ms Bishop's analysis is wide of the mark. It does not matter whether she wrote it or not. Her name is attached to it and it is therefore "hers". The concern I and others have is that someone who aspires to be the next Foreign Minister and Deputy PM should be better informed on the topics she writes about. Her article was full of errors of fact. It is not just a case of having a different opinion. There is always scope for people to disagree about the inferences to be drawn. As Keynes said: you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
In all likelihood Ms Bishop did write this piece, althought her staff probably provided the bones. That does not excuse the errors. You say that you dislike the attacks upon her and that it is hard to get politicians to write for online sources for that reason. You confuse attacks upon the ideas with attacks upon the person. As moderator you are perfectly free to delete ad hominen attacks. I often wish you would moderate some comments on the basis that they are too profoundly ignorant to justify the space, but I suppose that is part of the price of the Internet. I am sure that the people whose opinions I respect do what I do: simply ignore them.
As much as you obviously like to give Ms Bishop space, perhaps you might invite comments from, or reproduce commentaries of people who are better informed on these topics. Peep Escobar, Gareth Porter and Robert Fisk are among many who actually add to the debate.

James, I've just scanned the thread and I cannot see anyone pointing out a single fact that Julie has got wrong, including you. Perhaps you might point out what these errors are?

Graham

I've clicked the 'X' (Recommend deletion) box under your comment of Saturday, 1 September 2012 5:26:19 PM and written: 'This is a test message from Killarney' in the box. Then I clicked Submit.

This is the process I've used at least twice before, and given my pseudonym in the message. If there is no record of these messages at OLO, then perhaps you should look into why these messages are not getting through and/or why I am not receiving any replies.

Having said that, however, due to the thinly veiled and unwarranted threat of a ban in your reply to me, plus my ongoing frustration and disgust at the levels of unaddressed misogyny and harrassment towards feminist-oriented commenters on the gender threads, it's no doubt time for me to bow out of OLO altogether.

This is not a huffy kneejerk reaction, but something I've been considering for a while. The truly regressive level of discourse on the OLO gender threads poison the otherwise high standard of debate on all the other threads.

Graham, I did point out a major error in the article. I am happy to expand but I think it would be better if you published an article giving a different viewpoint than that propounded by Ms Bishop. I would be happy to submit such an article. As an alternative I have suggested at least three authors whose grasp of what is going on in the Middle East is, to say the least, somewhat more authoritative than what we have been served up with to date.

Killarney, if you really wanted to test the system you wouldn't have announced that you just had, you'd wait and see whether you got a response. There is nothing faulty with the system, and you have not previously complained. I keep all emails and I did a search before responding to your comment.

Up to you whether you continue to post or not, but making unfounded accusations and then going off in a huff (interesting that you denied you were in a huff even before anyone had made the accusation) is not particularly convincing behaviour.

James, if you had pointed out a factual error then you would have reiterated it. Feel free to submit an article, but I make no guarantee that we will publish it. Articles need to meet a standard.

Graham, read the second and fourth paragraphs of my first comment. Both rebut what are manifest falsehoods in the Bishop article.

I will submit an article, but refrain from commenting on your "standards" which should perhaps be applied more uniformly in publishing factual material rather than politically motivated misinformation of the type under discussion.

James, seeing you seem reluctant to do any work, the relevant paragraphs are:

"It is also alarming that for someone who hopes to be Australia's next deputy PM and Foreign Minister Ms Bishop is alarmingly ill-informed about the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. Her bald assertion that Iran is "unquestionably" pursuing a nuclear arms capability flies in the face of two unanimous NIE reports that that is not the case."

"For her to repeat the tired and long discredited suggestion that Iran wants Israel wiped off the map just reinforces how much her views are guided by prejudice and ignorance rather than the facts."

These are not errors of fact. What you are disputing is her interpretation of facts. An entirely different matter.

Your assertion that her article is "full of errors of fact" is not correct, unless you have other evidence.

Graham,

I cited two examples. The first of these was a rebuttal of the claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. I based this conclusion on, among other things, the unanimous conclusion of all 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program not later than 2003. Their reports are contained within the National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). The Israeli Defence Minister also acknowledged very recently that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. There are other sources as well, including the previously cited Gareth Porter.

If Ms Bishop has evidence, as opposed to an opinion, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program then she should share it with among others the US intelligence agencies. If she does not then a period of silence from her on those matters would be welcome.

My second illustration was the oft repeated claim that Iran threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". This particular lie first appeared in an Israeli newspaper. The most charitable interpretation is that it was a mistranslation of the original Farsi. Juan Cole, the respected Middle East expert from the University of Michigan is one of many who have corrected the record on that point.

For both of these lies to be repeated ad nauseum invites one of two conclusions. Either the writer is simply ignorant, for which there is no excuse because the evidence (as opposed to the opinion) is available for all who care to look. The other conclusion is that the writer is deliberately attempting to mislead. You decide which is applicable in this case.

As a lawyer I always try to draw conclusions based upon the evidence. If there is evidence to the contrary I am happy to listen to it and adjust my conclusions accordingly. What I will not do is change my mind because someone has a different "opinion".

Unless and until Ms Bishop produces evidence as opposed to opinion singularly free of an evidential basis I will continue to argue against her and all your other contributors who write in a similar vein.

Graham is it usual for a moderator to criticize an OLO contributors valid posting, on an essay published on OLO.
Though you may personally know Julie Bishop, surely it is up to Julie Bishop to respond, as in this instance comments on this essay as now digressed from the content of the essay in question.

Grahamy is trying to walk the line of pleasing the establishment and injecting alternate views into his site.He is trying to raise the status of OLO by getting high profile people like Julie Bishop to write articles here but his problem is this growing awareness by us of how corrupt the Western system of Oligarchy has become.

Bankers control the West and they create all the money for our system to function.They can decide who survives or perishes.To a degree I can empathise with Graham but the stakes at this point in our history are extremely high.It is not only the threat of Nuclear War but also the loss of our freedoms and decmocracy that are at stake.Since 911 the USA has almost destroyed it's Constitution and any rights US citizens had.The same is happening here.

Some months ago Saul Eastlake attempted to deride myself because I took him to task on the inequity of our banking system.When he could not win the debate he insisted that I disclose my identity.I gave my first name but that did not satisfy Saul.Why is a name important when debating ideas?

Why not Graham contact some high profile people here? http://www.globalresearch.ca/ Prof Michel Chossudovsky writes some brilliant and honest articles.Also contact Prof Michael Hudson who visited our RBA in 2009 and asked them why they cannot create our new credit so our debt and taxes can be lowered? Why were our RBA so silent on this most important issue?

A very salient riposte James.

However, OLO is only and will always be but an 'opinion' site. Going on Minister Bishop's contributions in the past, there is next to no chance she will engage, or answer your challenges.

Besides, and I am sure you would be aware, only one side of politics is 'loose with the truth' and only one politician is a "Liar".

James, the last NIE is 5 years old, and didn't equivocally say what you say it did. There is a new NIE which isn't publicly available, but the details of which appear to be reasonably well-known http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/15/exclusive_new_national_intelligence_estimate_on_iran_complete.

I think Julie's sources of information will be far better than yours on this issue.

On her comments about Iran's existential threat to Israel you can check out her sources at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/17/iran-israel-zionist-insult-humanity and http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1683733/Israel-a-cancerous-tumour-Ahmadinejad. The Wikipedia entry on some of his earlier comments makes interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

I guess the poverty of your excuses is underlined by your "trust me, I'm a lawyer" argument.

Irrespective of which, you are not entitled to call opinions "lies". If you are a lawyer you should understand that.

Graham, you persist in misrepresenting my arguments. I did not call opinions "lies" but referred to the specific claim that Iran had called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as a specific example of a lie. Neither did I claim that because I was a lawyer my opinions should be "trusted" any more than the next person. The point I made was that as a lawyer I was interested in the evidential basis of opinions. If they lack that basis they tend not to have much utility.

As to whether Ms Bishop is better informed than me on foreign policy issues, that is a classic example of arguing without any evidence. You don't know what I know, much less whether it is more or less than Ms Bishop. Readers will be able to judge for themselves how well- informed her arguments are. Your assertions will not give her credibility that is otherwise lacking.

I don't propose to respond further because clearly you are impervious to reasoned debate.

Here's some more fact checking for you James - she didn't say that Iran had called for Israel to "be wiped off the map". I gave you the links to what she was quoting, which I found by a little use of Google.

From the stand point of a disinterested observer, it seems to me that James O'Neill is the one who is << impervious to reasoned debate>>.

He makes a number of claims and when he is called to account, responses with something akin to “I’m taking my bat and going home”.

And Bonmot, cheers from the sidelines.
As someone else might have said: surprise, surprise!

Says SPQR, as he critiques from the sidelines.

@ Poirot,

<<Says SPQR, as he critiques from the sidelines>>

I would not term my post a “critique” since one of that words meaning is "to pass judgment”.

And some --those prone to nick-pick & conflate--might get the wrong impression.

I think that my comment might better be characterized as a/an (objective) summary of the state of play—or non-play, since James has walked off the field with his bat!

Earlier in this thread I said that Killarney had never used the "Recommend this comment for deletion button" on the basis of a search of my emails. I should have used her real name, not the nickname for the search.

Killarney has pointed this out in a private email to me. You will find I asked for this evidence much earlier in this thread but it wasn't forthcoming from her.

Killarney did complain twice. Once on the 24th July and once on the 25th. The posts she complained about were http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=240071 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=240223.

I responded on the basis that misogyny is not against forum rules, and that neither breached rules. I do not think either is in the class of the ridicule that we continuously get of Julie Bishop (although I wouldn't classify most of that as being misogynist either). I also note that David G, the author of one of the "misogynistic" comments, is cited approvingly in this thread by Killarney on the subject of Julie Bishop.

What I would like to see is people discussing what Bishop says, not denigrating the writer, her motives, or her purported lack of subject knowledge. And that goes for all other writers, whether male or female.

While misogyny is not against the rules, cyber bullying is, and if we get a pack developing, whether misogynist or not, as we have had here, then I will take action.

Thanks, Graham.

I too wish to clarify that I have just found Graham's email responses in my spam email - which is why I believed my complaints had been ignored. I then contacted Graham earlier today to show him the email trail. We have since exchanged correspondence and agreed that there has been a technical breakdown of communication at both ends.

As the complaints icon does not link directly to personal email, I had no visual record that I made the original complaints, so I could not respond to Graham's request for evidence.

Apologies to all here for taking the thread off topic. It arose from an initial throwaway comment and escalated from there.

I love a happy ending : )

Well what an interesting read?
And so much mature comment?
If Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons technology, then why can't we see it?
Why is there so much secrecy and seriously hardened underground technical facilities?
If it is just peaceful power, then why isn't it out in the open and thorium, which is vastly more plentiful than uranium; and, more importantly, has no weapons spin-off!?
Clearly sanctions don't work and have never ever worked, unless the goal was to kill innocent women and children?
Nor has endless rhetoric or appeasement!
Israel needs to settle the Palestine problem, with now very urgent alacrity, accept and implement all of the requirements of the two state solution it has already agreed to!
Stop with the settlements, and negotiate a final border, to allow the already agreed to, two state solution to proceed apace!
My read is, that Iran isn't actually building nuclear armed weapons; but rather, the technology and the materials, which it could be stockpiling?
Meaning, it could in just a matter of hours, respond and assemble a couple of dozen retaliatory nuclear weapons/IBM's?
However, it needs Its near neighbour Syria to remain in Assard's hands, if it wishes to continue to beat the sanctions blockade with impunity?
Britain is also being a bit two-faced, I believe, talking the sanctions talk loudly and belligerently, but acting wike a wittle wamb, when it comes to implementing them?
As for the extra Public servants being sent to Iran; Julie, their real mission may well be intell gathering; and or, recruiting from a very large cohort of disaffected Iranians, tired of the, enough already, internal blood-letting.
As always, we should hope for the best possible Middle East outcome, but prepare for the worst!
Rhrosty.