America and Israel might have all the firepower, but it is not other nations they are fighting: it is stateless terrorism and fundamental Islam. It is these “weak” sources of danger that are causing all the problems, with few modern weapons and very little back up, even from rogue states who know that they will be hit by the USA for openly aiding terrorism.

“…they (the US and Israel) go about stoking the fires of anger and hate…”. Complete nonsense! They are defending themselves (in Israel’s case) and the Western world in the case of America. As for their “violently hostile approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran..”, what could be more hostile than that country’s maniacal president vowing to wipe Israel of the map? And Hamas was and still is a terrorist organization – elected government or not.

And, of course, Palestinians are totally blameless with their “few harmless home-made rockets”!

Even the useless and cowardly European Union is on the wrong side, according to this “British writer and consultant”. The dill also wants the “mayhem” caused by the US and Israel replaced with: “Dialogue and diplomacy, mutual accommodation, the search for a balance of power, the mediation of international institutions..”.

More nonsense. When have the maniacs threatening the Western world and Israel ever been amenable to dialogue? Never. It is their way or death for all those opposing them.

The only problem with the power wielded by America is that it also protects people like Patrick Seale.

Just another apologist for terrorists. When has Israel ever threatened Iran? It is Iran who appears determiend to destroy Israel (not to mention the Palestinians and the million Arabs in Israel and the Islamic sacred sites in Jerusalem that will be collatoral damage.

As for Hamas, their stated aim is the destruction of the Jewish State and all the Jews within it. The Palestinians can elect who they want, that is their right, but if they choose to elect a terrorist organisation then they have to live with the consequences.

I note your aside about a few harmless rockets being fired into Israel. Would you feel the same way if an organisation bent on your destruction started firing home made rockets into your suburb? Of course not, you hypocrite!

Leigh,

Please open your mind and look at this from a different perspective, this so called 'stateless terroism' is a grossly exaggerated threat, think about the amount of people in the west who are killed by terrorists and compare it to how many are killed by car accidents or cancer.

It is in the interests of western states to exaggerate the threat of terrorism in order to wage war in the middle east for geopolitical purposes and restrict our civil liberites at home.

Until people like yourself recognise the real threat to our democracy, perpetual war is a probability.

I agree with Leigh.

Dr Seale must throw off his easy academic assumptions. Evil in the world can and does occur without the US and its ally Israel. The US usually reacts to areas of instability rather than causing the instability.

The US and Israel did not ask the President of Iran to make public threats about Israel’s existence.

Few Iranians would deny that the development of nuclear weapons is an likely Iranian goal. All other nuclear weapons states in the region (India, Pakistan and Israel) originally began with a "peaceful" nuclear program. Ownership of such weapons is a point of popular pride in those countries. The same feeling is emerging in Iran.

While Israel is usually considered the target of Iran's future nuclear weapons I think it’s the weaker Muslim states around Iran that should be concerned (this includes Iraq and Saudi Arabia).

A resurgent Iranian military, which holds nuclear weapons, could coerce neighboring countries into numerous geographical and economic concessions. For example Iran has long coveted the port of Basra and the oil fields around it. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was in part fought to possess this area. Then the defence forces of Iran and Iraq were almost even but now the Iraqi army is extremely weak and could not resist Iranian threats or incursions (without US assistance).

So I believe Iran is building up a nuclear capability to dominate its Muslim neighbors. Threats against Israel are a diversion, but a dangerous one at that.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Dr Searle has his blinkers on.

There is a bigger picture here that he is not seeing.

Not only does a country need to protect their position by stopping others from encroaching on their position (at the top of the tree), they need to strategically eliminate the potential for threat by using facades and scapegoats to warrant military action.

The potential for profit is huge in any conflict, both for weapons manufacurers (guess who owns them), contracting companies which come in after the conflict, resources access (e.g Oil) and organisational structure for government which allows the invaded country to turn into an ally within only a few short months.

There are long term threats that Dr Searle is not seeing. this is not just about being afraid or paranoid, every country that becomes the number 1 in military might never stays there and the US wants to learn form those mistakes and hold the mantle for the good of thier people.

You call it fear and paranoia, many call it insight and homeland security.

The violence and war in the world is mainly a male thing. There are few warlike states in history with female leaders. Few female army chiefs. Few terrorist organisations headed by women. Few women among the machete wielding gangs in Timor. Few drunken women among those terrorising some remote aboriginal communities. Pictures of war and terror are dominated by women and children fleeing male-inflicted violence.

I'm a male, but I can't understand it. What's going on here, guys?