Jeff Schubert,

You queried whether the interests of Israel were the same as those of Australia. I would remind you of two ancient adages:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

The forces attacking Israel are the same as those attacking Australia. Therefore, just as in WW2 Russia was our ally, in this struggle Israel is.

You also claim that a nuclear Iran would increase the stability of the Middle East. I would suggest that the current conflict is very different to the Cold War. During the Cold War we had stability because neither side wanted to die. Today we face an enemy who is very happy to die. None other than the current president of Iran is on record as saying that it might be a good idea if Iran were to be martyred.

plerdsus,

Such "adages" promote simplistic thinking -- or more precisely emotional responses. It is easy to forget that the "enemy" (being human) will have his good points and is not always wrong, and that the "friend" (also being human) will have his bad points. Getting a grip on reality means putting effort into understanding these. The Iranian leadership will not want to die any more than the Nazi leadership. And on this point, Ahmadinejad has no-where near the power that Hitler had -- perhaps you could explain to us why you think that he has (but please, with reason and logic and not simple adages).

Jeff Schubert

In response to Jeff Schubert, plerdsus wrote:
"You also claim that a nuclear Iran would increase the stability of the Middle East. I would suggest that the current conflict is very different to the Cold War. During the Cold War we had stability because neither side wanted to die. Today we face an enemy who is very happy to die. None other than the current president of Iran is on record as saying that it might be a good idea if Iran were to be martyred."

I'm not sure that too many Iranians, except for the radical muslim types, would be willing to be martyred. Forcible martyrdom, if you could really call that martyrdom, like the youth Khomeini conscripted on suicide missions might be the outcome. On the other hand, if Iran is attacked, I think even those who hate their own government would be willing to take up arms.

Jeff,

I agree completely. A nuclear armed Iran would do wonders for peace in the Middle East. Suddenly all those decisions which were 'too hard' and 'too painful' for Israel would become possible.

Israel has been able to ignore all attempts at peace and create facts on the ground precisely because it has had no real opposition. A nuclear armed Iran would see it a lot less hysterical and a lot more realistic. In short, the day Iran went nuclear would be a great day for peace.

On another note...
An interesting article in todays SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/blairs-man-held-a-second-time-over-funds-row/2007/01/31/1169919402464.html

Tony Blair's chief fund raiser Lord Levy has been arrested for suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice. His fate will be decided by the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith.

I'm sure the A-G will act in good faith, however I can't help but think if only the Palestanians had a fraction of Jewish political power and wealth then there would have been peace a long time ago. Of course, Ted, not that there's any such thing as Jewish influence...

Terrorism - dumfarkistan style.
If the German government is acting, then it must mean something, eh?
I sure hope everyone gets a fair trial!

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2204079.ece
Arrest warrants issued for CIA 'kidnapping team'
By Tony Paterson in Berlin
Published: 01 February 2007

"Munich state prosecutors took the unprecedented step yesterday of issuing warrants for the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents alleged to have kidnapped and beaten a German national who was abducted and held prisoner in Afghanistan under the extraordinary rendition programme.

"Khaled el Masri, a German of Lebanese descent, was bundled into an unmarked bus while on holiday in Macedonia in December 2003 and flown to a US jail in Afghanistan.He was released in May 2004.

"Mr Masri alleges that he was beaten and mistreated by US interrogators, even though it was clear he was innocent. He says that on his release he was "dumped like a piece of luggage" in Albania and told by his abductors that they "wanted to hear nothing more" about him.

"The US has refused to assist the German authorities over Mr Masri's case. In May last year, a judge dismissed a lawsuit he filed against the CIA, citing national security considerations."
(snip - more through the link)

According to Ted Lapkin "Argentine investigators also found ample evidence to indicate orders for the bombing were signed, sealed and delivered from Tehran". He then argues that Hezbollah operatives carried out the Iranian orders.

Sorry Ted, but while the Argentines believe they've solved the case, not too many others are convinced. Britain refused to extradite Hade Soleimanpour, the former Iranian ambassador to Argentina becaue there was "not enough prima facie evidence". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3266011.stm

According to the Jamestown Institute (a conservative think-tank) "many observers believe the evidence implicating Iran and Hezbollah in these incidents is scant and, at best, circumstantial." http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369844 The Argentine investigation of the bombing has been an absolute debacle, with bribery and corruption abounding. It seems highly likely that Interpol will reject Argentina's extradition request.

Ted, your article is a pile of assertions on top of a very shaky foundation.