Perhaps the correct option would rather be to open up relations with Iran and remove most of the reason for Ahmadinejad's anti-US rhetoric from under him. After all, before Iran was idiotically declared a member of the 'Axis of Evil' the pro-US opposition was very strong in Iran. Sanctions and war will only give Ahmadinejad more power and respect in Iran --as they did for Hussein in Iraq--, while hurting only the population which will only see it as an act of agression against their nation.

Wow, what a sense of deja vu.

Now all of a sudden the Iranian regime is the most brutal in history. I thought Saddam won the auction for that tag...

There is no doubt that Iran's regime has been and still is brutal. But lets not forget that it holds fairly open elections and as Leanne points out there is a fairly strong resistance movement. A movement that was severely dealt a blow when, as Simon points out, the US decided to put Iran on it's hit list. No Iranian wants to see the quagmire in Iraq happen in their own backyard.

Of course, Leanne can talk about 'people power' as much as she likes. It is a term that somehow makes resistance seem heroic and valiant. It dresses up what are often bloody and violent combats as though they were some utopian activity. Very simple for someone sitting in an armchair to talk about.

Then there is the problem of who to back. Leanne covers her tracks nicely by discrediting the Human Rights Watch report before it can even be raised in relation PMOI. I mean surely if the FBI and US State department have discredited it, then it must not be true. It's not as if either of those organisations has ever committed or supported abuses of human rights, particularly when the "national interest" is at stake.

Err-- yeah, I realise that's roughly what your saying... too much coffee to read or write sanely just now.

“Dr Leanne Piggott is a lecturer in the Discipline of Government and International Relations at The University Of Sydney.”

Wow a PhD in illusional stupidity. Discipline of government, when has any body seen that, except their discipline to themselves and their friends, like Ms Piggot.

This is typical of the so called educated, repeating negative history again. 40 years ago it was Vietnam who was the evil ones, they lost that one. Then Iraq, their losing that one too. They want to arm radical militants, just like they did in most countries that have turned on them in the end.

Can you blame the Iranians for preparing to defend themselves with nuclear arms, when the US has been getting closer and closer to either bombing them or invading. The problem is that the US is running out of troops and support, so their only option is nuclear. That way they don't commit US citizens to another unwinnable war, as it will be over in a day, so they think.

There is nothing that can be done, the US is determined to gain control of all the major oil resources of the world at any cost, as without it, they are doomed. The only reason the US hasn't attacked Syria, is because they don't have large supplies of oil. But that will change once they bang Iran. Note no thought of attacking Nth Korea, who now has a large arsenal, no oil there.

I don't even think that the Iranians would make a pre-emptive strike on anyone, knowing what the retaliation would be. Thats why the US wants to take them over now before they are capable of defending themselves.

The US imports more than 60% of its oil, and is 13th on oil reserves. Interestingly, Canada appears to have the 2nd largest reserves and is currently in a situation that see's increasing pressure from islamic and US influences trying to move Canada their way. Thats according to my Canadian friends

Just ignore the typical anti Western rants above Leanne; some would not realize it until the bomb had landed in a certain part of their body.
I have had some communications with friends (English speaking) in Iran, the most astonishing thing is, and they are more westernized than some of the clowns here.
It is common amongst most Iranians that they need to destroy the Regime of their Nation, contry to some belief, the Greater part of the population still link their heritage to pre Islamic times. Islam to them is perhaps what Stalin was to Russia. But for the threat of death. Much is the same throughout that region, even in tribal areas they practice religious heritage of Zoroastrianism, etc with the obvious Islamic outer dress and slant.
Mary Boyce is the authority on that subject.
And if you ever get the chance. Obtain a copy of: “In Search of Zarathustra”, by Paul Kriwaczec. That fills in some of the gaps.
The Iranian people are indeed in big trouble, but they do not want western Help to end their Occupation, they are more than adamant about that, they will achieve it by their own means and in time. Like Poland, one of the more reasonable and good friends of the West and undoubtedly once the curse is removed from Iran, They to will become great allies and friends. God knows, they want it.
The realization of nuclear devices in the hands of the Mad Mullahs who worship death, even the staunchest pacifist must admit something must be done.
In that place “Ahura Mazda” lives and Zarathustra is strong, very strong.
Saudi Arabia is the cruxt of the problem.

Congratulations to Leanne for an objective statement on this country. It is all too easy to make armchair assessments from a position of cynicism of knowing better. Go to Iran and feel the country. Speak to its people and see the way the regime is not representative of its people.

Iran is a country where a Guardian Council of mullahs vets aspiring politicians and rejects those in any way tagged as reformist.

Where the media is tightly controlled satellite TV is limited to inane, feel good channels and as the people put it to you “We have freedom of speech in this country until we speak”.

Where police, ostensibly there to protect crime, are in excessive numbers around Tehran’s city squares where embarrassing public demonstrations have been held against the regime.

Where as a visitor, one is struck by the number of people who express their oppression and, if not speaking English, make the sign of the mullah (a swirl around the top of the head to indicate the turban) and follow it with a thumbs down. Just look at the footwear of the women below their imposed chadors.

Walk with a local Iranian and watch their discomfort in walking with a foreigner (and find out what happens to an employee of a government agency who does).

The Iranian people reacted to the regime of the Pahlavi’s (yes it was US backed etc) and welcomed in Khomeini only to discover a worse oppression. Today, with its oil wealth, it is a poor country.

Iran is oppressed by any measure and its “nuclear research” in context of its oil wealth and low economic standing, must be seen with scepticism. The West’s response is being selectively fed through its controlled media and used to underpin its regime. Iran’s economic plight will be externalised, a ploy used by the likes of Mugabe, Dr Mahatir, Sukarno to Hitler.

I feel sorry for the delightful well-educated people of Iran without access to free media and free representation

I have spoken with Iranians on forums and get the same drift, they want change themselves.

The only problem is Israel. Can they afford to wait for internal change.?

I think we all should stay away, if it leads to mass carnage then I think it is in honour of all their gods over there. We are not God. religion is more important to peace for all involved it seems, so we allow their god's to decide

What a fantastic article by Leanne Piggott putting forward the best and most realistic option on how to deal with Iran. That is to support the Iranian people themselves and their popular Resistance movement to bring about democratic change in Iran. great!! what more do we want. We must rejoyce that Iran has an organised opposition movement and lend it our support or at least stop supporting the dictatorial regime of Iran and stop hindering the Resistance. The first step would be to refer Iran to the UN security council and remove the main opposition, the PMOI from the U.S. and E.U. terror lists. They were placed there to curry faviour with the so called 'moderates' and remained there as part of the EU3 nuclear deal with Iran. It is indeed high time we remove the name of the Iranian Resistance from the terror list and let the Iranian people make the regime change in Iran. the regime change we so need in order to have peace and stabiltiy in the region and the wider world.

Leanne, agree with you that the present leader in Iran would be better if he used less violent rhetoric, but surely not much worse than George W' and his White House neo-cons, in their talk sounding like fashioning the world into two armed camps of good or evil.

To be sure, according to some reports, there are big sections of the Iranian people, who would prefer Western ways as they did under the US puppet Shah, but we could make a bet that they would still want to retain their Islamic faith. Also one could make a bet that they still would not hope to become a colonial-style Dyarky democracy as it seems the Paul Bremer plan has for Iraq, virtually under US supervision for years to come - and which would not be too good as planned under Western agreement, because it would have the whole non-Western world joining the Islamics in the fear and hatred of America that our modern world is suffering from now. Not much of a world to be living in, as a matter of fact.

About time both sides pulled their horns in and organised a Conference on a modern style of Realpolitik, with topics like sharing the blame, and each side admitting their mistakes. Talks could go on about nuclear capabilities having reached the stage in our world, especially with little srael having been allowed to take command of the whole Middle East with its store of nuclear rockets. and which of course makes Iran more determined to join the club.

Rather than sniping at Iran all the time, Leanne, surely there is a chance of negotiation. Also in your role as a political science lecturer, surely you must agree that the offer of power sharing, is far better and more diplomatic than having all the heavy artillery on one side like the US and Israel has in the Middle EAst. Maybe you have forgotten about what really causes suicide bombing, in war jargon, simply lack of what the opposition already has too much of, sophisticated modern weaponry

How this one every body disarm their nukes. Everyone to only spend 5% gpd of armed forces. They we could enforce no nukes on everyone. Remeber their is only one Coutry that has used nukes in a fight and they are also led by someone who believes their Country is being guided by a God.

You are so right, Kenny, mate, us thinkers are getting so fed up we are getting close to believing that saying by Socrates, out with the Gods and in with the Good. Of course, Socrates meant the sort of Gods the mainstream followed in those old days. Yet isn't it sort of true these days that leaders of both sides are changing the minds of possibly decent Gods to suit themselves.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Excellent article. It high time for the "rural lout" to move on and he will no doubt be moved on, but by his own people.

RE comment above on Iran v Israel: It's a lot more complex there than we imagine. It also seems the height of hypocrisy, to me at least, that Ahmadinejad can abuse and decry a "Jewish" state when he leads an "Islamic Republic". He is a mincer of words and an ignorant, manipulative man who will probably be overthrown later this year by the scores of much more educated Iranian citizens.

The Economist has an interesting snippet.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5420675

Sorry, but all this is futile.

We are doomed to phase II of the conflict beginning in IRAN by christmas 2006.

Achelmist, i agree whith you, but not in your rude shot at the writer.

Mate, she has done well and there is no point knocking anyone, you and i did not achieve what she has in her field. Give her a break on the personal attacks, there are room for theorists in this life, however futile in certain circumstances.

It annoys me more about North Korea, the only real world threat, that the US does not want a fight, they want to railroad their victories and grab the trophy.

What a shame we are all insignificant and we cant change anything.

Leanne - your sooo wrong

The only thing that Iran's authoritarian regime respect is threats of military force that would put them out of a job.

The US, UK, France and Israel are runnng a scare campaign against Iran which is a legitimate and humanitarian strategy.

Your softly, softly approach of using opposition groups would backfire as they would be accused by Iran (perhaps with some justification) as being "in the pay of CIA imperialism".

Its all well, good and democratic for people to say that Iran like other countries is entitled to have nuclear weapons. But Iran (or its terrorist friends) may endanger Australia one day.

When Iran gets around to producing miniturised nuclear weapons they could be transported to Australia with ease. You may have heard of "suitcase nuclear devices", such weapons can also be integrated into innocuous looking business jets etc. Far fetched? So were the terrorist "bombings" of 9/11.

So while we must be fair, the Iranian regimes actions and statements represent a real danger for the future.

Unless Iran's nuclear program is stopped that is, by reponding to:

a) the scare campaign, or

b) responding to the realisation of the scare campaign, that is airstrikes against Iran's nuclear development and ballistic missile facilities.

I realise these statements are not politically correct in this string.

If you would like to read further on how these airstrikes may be executed please consult my blog "Spooky Pete" at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete

The threat posed by any country possessing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is very real.
Some of the countries who possess most of the nuclear weapons have also been the most aggressive countries in the past fifty years and we should be more concerned about these countries than we are.

I think that we should have one set of rules for all of the countries who have nuclear weapons - get rid of them.

If every country had a department of Peace then we may have a much happier world than we have.

So its Iran that is imminently going to create nuclear warheads and take over the world this time? lollerskates...

I still think the real solution has to come from the Iranian people and their resistance. Another war in the middle-east is going to create a disaster. Following is an Article by opposition leader, Maryam Rajavi, publiished in the IHT. If you have time click on the link and read the whole thing:

"There is no need for war; no one would want to see an Iraq II played out in Iran. But engagement, which has shaped policy toward Iran on both sides of the Atlantic for two decades, has been a disaster, strengthening the most radical factions of the ruling theocracy.

The failure to isolate a religious dictatorship bent on spreading its fiery brand of Islamic fundamentalism and acquiring nuclear weapons has led to the current stalemate. Now Tehran's missiles, capable of bearing weapons of mass destruction, can reach eastern and southern Europe."

International Herald Tribune full Article: (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/27/opinion/edrajavi.php)

Maryam Rajavi Website:
http://maryam-rajavi.com

I see some posts suggesting that the war in iraq etc is about oil evidenced by the fact that north korea is being left alone. This understanding shows how little you understand; china is protecting north korea. surely noone is suggesting we commit suicide by taking them on. we need to be pragmatic and fight for democracy where we have a chance of winning. North korea is stopped from being a threat because as soon as they do anything china will have to renounce thier protection or face mutual assured destruction, whereas north korea wouldn't last minutes without china and only has a few Nbombs at most. Whereas iran is trying to get the technology in place to make several per month. I am certainly glad we do not have any sort of direct democracy on international affairs, as you guys would have no idea. Much better to follow our system of electing a war cabinet, who takes the advice of thousands of educated analysts, instead of uneducated idiots. Its a pity that noone understands our system, as the protests against the war showed (through the language they used, "we don't want this war" etc). what these people are really saying is "we don't want this democracy" which has long had traditions for deciding when to go to war. The time for protest is at the polls, if you want to protest before that, then you have been an idiot in the last election (not advocated enough, or elected with ignorance). Hopefully with Johnny fighting against the reletivism that lets you think your opinion is worth as much as a government opinion made up from the veiws of thousands, there may not be another idiotic and undemocratic generation! Go Johnny against reletivism and post-modernity and political correctness.

oh fide mae
Some of the idiots you refer to knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Many of them knew that Iraq posed no threat to the rest of the world. Thousands of your educated analysts should have known these facts and thus saved the lives of many thousands of people in Iraq.
The educated analyst will often write a report which contains the information that his/her employer wants to hear.

It somethimes seems that there are more experts on terrorism than there are terrorists. I suppose that a lot of them are employed by the "intelligence" services of different countries.

As long as we continue to rely on the advice of experts then we will continue to live in a world filled with expertly organised violence.
This situation will continue until people start to use their own brains istead of relying on experts.

I would point out that you are not disagreeing with me, but with democracy. You sure you trust your own reasoning, compared with the thought of a few centuries thinkers, as well as the whole public service?

I think this is the first time I've seen a Western academic, anywhere, call for regime change in Iran. Even in the USA, the advocates of this position seem to come mostly from think tanks, not universities.

In my experience, they also usually warn not to work with the PMOI (aka MEK, aka MKO). I'm aware that the PMOI does have supporters among the Iranian diaspora (it looks like there are a few posting on this thread), but in general they seem to have a bad reputation. See the comments here, for example:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17189

OO yes, the PMOI are worse (If possible) they worked for Saddam, in killing Iranian Soldiers, Paid by Saddam. Killing Kurds also, and countless many others.
And this is the leadership western Governments seek to empower?.
See this and read the links.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/41/