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