Bruce, this is a useful summary but there are some points that you make that are seriously contentious. For example, you appear to blame the Syrian government for the refugee and humanitarian crisis there. You completely fail to mention that Syria is under attack from outside forces, many of a fundamentalist nature, armed and financed by the US, UK, France and the GCC countries. Even the appalling Hilary Clinton realised what was happening in that jihadist groups were acquiring huge influence in Syria and that if they succeed in overthrowing an essentially secular regime what will replace it will be even worse from the West's point of view.

A second area of contention is your claim that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons policy. Do you know something the 16 US intelligence agencies don't? They have unanimously concluded on at least two occasions that Iran has no such policy and it is irresponsible and mischievous to claim otherwise.

A third area is Israel. It is not just the settlement policy that is problematic. Israel is an international outlaw with a record of ignoring multiple UN resolutions, World Court findings and much else. It is also nuclear armed, a rather important fact that you totally fail to mention. The forthcoming elections look likely to produce an even more fanatical right-wing regime. A nuclear armed religiously orientated fanatical regime: isn't that what we claim to fear about Pakistan and Iran?

I agree with you on one thing however, the Coalition is even worse equipped to deal with the challenges you mention and don't mention.

Agreed, I do get upset with even intelligent men like Bruce make sweeping bogus claims about Iran.

Iran will not make nukes to attack Israel for the very simple reason they would end up slaughtering more Palestinians than anyone and that is pointless.

The paranoic rantings about Iran in general are madness but I wonder is we will be proud of the starvation of Iranians as we were when the AWB stole $300 million and starved thousands of Iraqis to death.

I suppose they could hire the wheat board, after all no-one ever got charged with that crime against humanity.

Bruce. You certainly draft a true 'spaghetti map' of the current issues facing the security council. I could not agree more that Carr should heed his departments professional advice, and surely they need resourcing commensurate with the task ahead of them.

I am unfamiliar with the issues associated with Sri Lanka but, as you advise, if Carr is making statements diametrically opposed to the advice he is being given, it doesn't bode we'll for the absence of politics and 'spin' that is required in the position.

Iran, Hamas and Hesbulla have stated, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms their objective of wiping out the state of Isreal. To expect meaningful negotiations at any level between these parties is fanciful.

I do hope that, whilst an 'even handed', neutral approach is desirable, decisions that are advantageous to Australia would be a good pragmatic direction.

I have followed Julie Bishops' posts here on OLO and consider that she is well across the issues as far as I understand them and articulates a pragmatic, ethical and insightful understanding of the portfolio.

An interesting if a little scary post wherein I wish the best to the officers tasked with the responsibility of promoting Australia's interests and those of all those affected by their decisions.

Failing all that, if Carr continues to ignore his under resourced department, I guess M Shepherd has a point re the AWB.

Given that Australian politicians on both sides of the fence are in bed with the U.S., our seat at the U.N. will merely echo whatever the U.S. wants.

And given that Carr is an Americanophile and Julia is a fawning twit to Obama, we really are up the creek without a paddle.

If only Australia had even the slightest streak of independence of thought and action in politics as it does in sport.

Faint hope indeed!