STREWTH

Iran isn't the world's most major threat? Let me guess, is it the USA? Are you one of those people who really believe the world would be better if the US wasn't the dominant power?

Good grief. If so, you musn't know that without US influence, Syria would have never left Lebanon - which they raped for decades (strange that Muslims never complain about that one isn't it?), Taiwan would be enslaved by China, as would Japan (you surely know the history there?) and tiny little Australia would be attacked from the north by our "Asian friends".

The ignorance of leftists never ceases to amaze me. It is the west who are evil yet it is the west everybody flocks to, illegally if need be.

MIKE.M

Do you not see how an attack on Israel would be bad for the world? Honestly?

I'll explain it. If Israel is attacked, they will attack back, likely with their own nuclear missiles, which would likely mean the end of Iran.

Muslims, I believe, WOULD take that as initiation for a HOLY WAR, as the world would be in real chaos if a nuclear war erupted in the region. Nations like China would see it as their chance to go all out on Taiwan (as the US would be busy, oh, and if you doubt that speak to experts on strategic policy, it's not my paranoid analysis)
and the world would likely degenerate into utter chaos.

Muslims, being brainwashed for the last, well no, forever really, by their wicked leaders would be a big problem as armies friendly to the US would pour into Israel to "wipe it off the map" for attacking Iran.

I encourage you to read all my post if you believe the REAL enemy is the USA, who, are the ONLY reason the world hasn't degenerated into this scenario already.

Do you really not see the vital role the US plays with regard to the barbarian cultures who make up 90% of our planet?

Benjamin- the reason that a mosque is built on the Temple Mount is because that is where Muslims believe Muhhumad acended to heaven. Not to offend you. Part of the drama with Jeruslam is that it is an area holy to three different religions.

Now, I do think that Iran's president has been saying some mighty inflammatory and damn stupid things lately, but really, as far as nuclear ambitions go, they are not really a threat. They have had, for years, inspections by the IAEA. UNLIKE the USA. UNLIKE India. UNLIKE Pakistan. Their program has been much more open and accountable. The US and Aust and Israel and the EU would be damn stupid to keep threatening so that Iran feels its only defense is to make sure it DOES acquire weapons, a la North Korea.

Benjamin: The world's greatest threat? Global warming. Imperial hubris, whatever the variety - US, Israeli or Chinese. "Without US influence Syria would have never left Lebanon"? With US influence Israel will never leave the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Golan Heights. Syria's rape of Lebanon? If you want to see "rape", check out Palestine: the bulk of the indigenous population driven from their lands and homes, their cities, towns and villages either destroyed or stolen, the remainder caged and occupied. And, re your lurid vision of Japan enslaved by China - "you surely know your history there" - it was actually the other way around in the 30's and 40's.

The media would not lie to us, just ask Leigh, there are WMD's in Iraq, and if the media and Johnny Bonsai say's so they are also in Iran, right Leigh!

Benjamin has attributed to me opinions that I do not hold.

Of course an Iranian attack on Israel would be bad for the the world, as would attack on any one country that maintains the rule of law by any other country. (As an illustration of the principle, Sudan does not maintain the rule of law in Darfur, so attack by a coalition of countries could be justifiable. Israel's military incursions into Palestine, especially its jailbreak the other day, are becoming marginal. However, oddly, the US is not planning to attack either one.)

Benjamin hyperventilates, "If Israel is attacked, they will attack back, likely with their own nuclear missiles, which would likely mean the end of Iran."

Rubbish.

The attack with nuclear bombs by the United States on Japan in 1945 was not the end of Japan. Iran occupies 1.6 million square km, more than four times the area of Japan. Israel on the other hand is only 20,000 sq km, not much more than a hundredth the size. The number of atomic bombs you'd need to flatten Israel would only make a small dent in Iran's land mass.

Attack by Israel would not be the end of Iran, but it would cause the Iranians to become decidedly angry.

Is the REAL enemy the United States, as Benjamin claims for some reason that I think?

What an idiotic idea.

Just because, since the Spanish-American War in 1898 the US has (if we exclude WWI, WWII and a plethora of opportunistic African warlords) attacked more countries than the rest of the world combined doesn't make it the enemy.

I don't complain when Australian police invade crooks' homes more often than crooks invade police stations.

So if America has become the world's sheriff and JHo has become Asia-Pacific deputy-dog, why should I think anything's wrong with that?

Smooth flow of discussion in this forum is clearly not impeded by correspondents allowing facts to get in the way of their own opinions.

I'm not convinced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as deranged or dangerous as made out to be by western media. He certainly talks in inflammatory language but that in itself does not mean he intends to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth". I see it more as a populist ploy for support from conservative members of his government and Iranian citizens. He's domestic policies have generally been aimed at helping the poor and underpriviledged and he is a well educated man married to a wife who is a professor. For example, there was a recent report on Channel 4 news in the UK which showed that Ahmadinejad has allowed methadone clinics to be established for the countries heroin addicts (the largest heroin addicted population in the world) where before these addicts would have been executed. So I think one has to be careful about swallowing western media caricatures.

But if we are to say that he is a threat I cannot comprehend how military action would improve the situation. The US's legitimacy is completely undermined at the moment as a result of Iraq and they will not be able to gain support for military action from western nations. Further, such action will only create a more hostile environment in the middle east.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I am getting pretty tired of lazy dialogue of good vs evil. The problem is complex and needs a more nuanced response than is being touted at the moment.